Know-Nothings – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯 HAD ENOUGH “BORDER BLATHER” FROM GOP NATIVISTS AND THE “WOBBLIES” 🐥 @ THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN? — ⚖️👏🗽 Get The “Real Skinny” As Melissa Del Bosque Interviews Immigration Policy Expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @ The Border Chronicle! — NO, The Prez Can’t “Waive A Magic Wand” 🪄 & “Close The Border!” 🔐

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Policy Counsel
American Immigration Council
Photo: Twitter

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/can-president-biden-really-shut-down?r=1se78m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

From The Border Chronicle:

Last Tuesday, in an interview with Univision’s Enrique Acevedo, President Joe Biden again said he’s considering issuing an executive order to ban asylum at the border. It’s an idea that Biden has floated before as the presidential election season slogs on, and after the bipartisan border bill meltdown in Congress. “We’re examining whether or not I have that power. Some are suggesting that I should just go ahead and try it,” Biden told Acevedo. “And if I get shut down by the court, I get shut down by the court.”

If Biden were to do such a thing, he would rely on Section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives a president the authority to suspend entry or place restrictions on noncitizens.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because Trump tried this several times during his presidency, most notably with the xenophobic Muslim ban. None of them were successful, and they only injected more chaos into an already beleaguered immigration system. So why is Biden proposing this idea now? The Border Chronicle spoke with immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, about Biden’s proposal and what an asylum ban would mean for asylum seekers and border communities.

Biden is floating the idea of issuing an asylum ban. How will this impact people seeking asylum at the border? And can the president actually, you know, just shut down the border?

So I’ll start with the second question. The answer is no. Though there are some authorities that get you somewhere close to it, like Title 42. But it’s important to understand the distinction between the legalistic aspect of issuing an order that further bans crossing the border and actually, effectively shutting down the border.

The best example of issuing an order that I would point to is President Trump’s 212 restriction from November 2018, through February 2021, which suspended the entry of all migrants crossing the border illegally. So we already know what it looks like when a president invokes Section 212 (f) of the INA to suspend the entry of migrants. What it looks like is nothing, because nothing happened. And that is because it is already a violation of immigration law to cross the border without inspection. And so adding another reason, you know why that’s not allowed, doesn’t have any practical impact on people who simply walk across the border or wade through the river or climb over a wall. Because the important question is not whether a person is committing an unlawful act by crossing. The important question is, what can the U.S. government do to respond once a person is on U.S. soil? This is why Section 212 (f) is not a good tool for addressing irregular migration.

The other question is, how does that affect people seeking asylum? Well, not very much. We saw this with the Trump administration, in order to carry out their 212 ban. They had to do two things: They had to issue the proclamation suspending the entry of migrants. And then separately, they passed a regulation saying, we are going to ban asylum to anyone who crosses the border in violation of the proclamation. And it’s that regulation that got struck down as unlawful with a court in California, and then the Ninth Circuit saying and affirming that what that amounted to was a total ban on asylum for people who enter the country illegally, which is simply not permissible, because the INA says people, no matter how they arrive in the United States, may apply for asylum.

Photo courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Share

I think people often forget about this, right? I mean, the law says that you can arrive anywhere at the border and ask for asylum.

You can arrive anywhere, and you can have any status. You can be documented, undocumented, you can enter legally or illegally. The key issue is whether or not you are physically present in the United States. And in that case, then they are allowed to apply for asylum. Now, the Biden administration has imposed an asylum restriction that does target people primarily by how they enter the United States. It is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, and the legality of it is not entirely clear. This is the circumvention of lawful pathways rule from last May. The Biden administration basically argued that it wasn’t a total ban on asylum, because it wasn’t technically based on the manner of entry, so it didn’t violate the INA. I think that was a weak argument, though.

If Biden were to implement the ban, would it impact legal migration?

Probably not at all. This would be a restriction, like the Trump restriction, that would apply only to migrants who cross the border between ports of entry, not those who go to ports of entry. So it would probably have no impact at all on legal migration. The crucial thing to understand is that, as a practical matter, even if they do manage to get an asylum restriction in place, which passes court muster, actually carrying out that restriction on migrants at the border is a very different story. And as we are seeing today, with the circumvention-of-lawful-pathways rule, even if you have banned asylum to nearly everybody crossing the border illegally, that does not actually mean that nearly everyone who crosses the border illegally is restricted from seeking asylum.

What impact could the asylum ban have on border communities? Do you think we’d see a buildup of people on the Mexican side and in camps just sort of waiting and trying to figure out what to do?

Anytime a new policy goes into effect, there’s a wait-and-see period. The Biden administration is already maximizing credible fear interviews. So it wouldn’t have a major change on how people are processed at the border. Other than that, the few 15 percent who were even put through credible fear, they would get denied. But even then, not all of them would get denied because, crucially, an asylum ban is discretionary. It’s just an asylum ban, and there’s more to humanitarian protection than just asylum that migrants can potentially invoke to avoid rapid removal or deportation proceedings. There’s withholding of removal, which is a form of asylum that’s harder to win and offers fewer benefits. And there’s protection under the Convention against Torture. So even today, people who are not eligible for asylum are still managing to pass their fear screenings because they could demonstrate eligibility for withholding or eligibility for protection under the Convention against Torture.

So, realistically speaking, having this asylum ban applied to 100 percent could mean only a few hundred people more a month being ordered removed. Not a huge shift. But for those people, obviously a very, very dramatic change. The question then is, how does the Biden administration talk about this? Does the ban discourage some people from showing up? You know if they falsely believe that this is a major shift? And, of course, how does Mexico respond?

These are the questions that are more important, because with Section 212 (f), I don’t see a way for the president to re-create something like Title 42, where people are simply expelled back across the border without being able to seek asylum. Even the Trump administration acknowledged that that’s not something that they could do with Section 212 (f).

Share

What strategy do you think Biden’s using here by floating this idea? Is it purely for political reasons? Because it’s an election year?

I don’t know. I think there’s a reason that they haven’t done anything yet. And that reason is likely to do with the fact that the lawyers have probably explained to Biden what happened when Trump tried and how unsuccessful that was.

Has the narrative around immigration and the border become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point?

Yes, I do think so. People want an easy solution, you know, build the wall, what have you, and are not acknowledging that this is an issue that the United States has been facing for, in its modern form, for 15 years. If you go back further, 100 years, really, ever since we first made it illegal to cross the border, we’ve been dealing with the challenges of how do you enforce that law? If you go back to the late 19th century, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States created a Bureau of Immigration where they had an entire division whose job it was to try to stop Chinese people coming in from Mexico and Canada. And then, in the early 20th century, the biggest issue at the southern border was Mexican migrants crossing the border without permission. We have a nearly 2,000-mile land border on the south and a 3,000-mile land border on the north. That is a lot of territory to patrol even in a modern world with technology. And the United States has been through a period of high migration for 40 out of the last 50 years. For 40 years it was Mexicans, not entirely, of course, and there were Central Americans during the death squad years of the 1980s, who came to the United States for safety.

But the real shift that’s happened in the last three years has been people from further abroad. And it is just a challenging issue in a world that is more interconnected and hypermobile than at any point in human history. And we have to acknowledge that complexity when we talk about how to address this issue.

I think when people are talking about, you know, just shutting down the border, they forget about the billions in trade and citizens from both sides who are crossing the border every day.

Right, exactly. Oftentimes, people don’t even think about that, you know, most people don’t know that about the half a million people who enter the United States every single day at the southern border. That’s at least 16 million entries a month. And that’s people legally crossing back and forth for school, for work, for commerce, or tourism. So when people say, “Let’s shut down the border,” they mean to migrants, but they’re not thinking about the rest of it. And you have to go back to this question of, is that something the United States can do or wants to do? Let’s say you build a Berlin Wall with, you know, gun towers, and Trump’s moat filled with alligators and shoot migrants in the legs. That probably would deter some people. But then are you a country that is murdering people for trying to seek a better life? Do we want to be that kind of country?

So here’s a really tough question. Do you have any solutions?

An overwhelming majority of people who would like to come to the United States have no legal pathway to do so. Alternate pathway strategies are key. This puts a focus on those who haven’t yet made the decision to leave. I think it’s important to put that in that framework. Because once people have already left, they have sold their house, they’ve abandoned the lease, they, you know, liquidated a lot of their savings, they may have sent a child to a parent or an aunt or uncle. All of which means, at that point, that simply going back becomes much harder.

We also have to address the root causes for why people leave their home countries, which is the hardest to do, of course. This would require the United States to reckon with its own record of foreign policy in Latin America, which is something a lot of politicians do not want to do. Alternate pathways are a good middle ground there, because you can give people an opportunity to come to the United States temporarily and legally without breaking any laws, starving the smugglers of resources. And making it easier for people to get here without falling into the hands of bad actors.

Once people are at the border, though, it’s a different story. There have to be better options for people to cross legally at ports of entry. People still need the opportunity to seek asylum. But there should also be an enforcement component for people who don’t fall within our asylum laws. Right now, the issue is that the system can’t easily distinguish at the border between those who have slam dunk asylum claims from those who just want to come here for a better life. And that is because for years Congress has failed to provide enough resources to the asylum system, humanitarian protection, systems screening—all of that is grievously underfunded and has been for decades.

Given the scale of migration we see today, the system has buckled under its own weight. So, we have to build the system back up and allow it to function. And that means delivering a yes in a reasonable time and delivering a no in a reasonable time regarding asylum claims. You know, it shouldn’t take seven years.

And it’s important to keep reminding people that these issues didn’t just start in 2020 with the Biden administration.

This is not a new issue. And it’s one that requires us to think outside of a partisan lens. This is about U.S. government capacity, the underlying legal structures, and U.S. foreign policy across the region, which has gone on for generations. The underlying legal authorities haven’t changed in decades. And the external circumstances have changed dramatically.

The ability of migrants to get to the border is easier than it has ever been. Flights are cheaper, and people have cell phones and Google Translate. In the past, if you wanted to get to the border, you would need to speak some Spanish, you would need to know someone. Now you can find all the information online. You can find it circulating on WhatsApp, Telegram or TikTok. And once you’re in a foreign country, you know, if you’re an African migrant who speaks French when you come through Mexico, you can use Google Translate to talk to other migrants and find out what they know. And so moving and migrating across the world is easier now than it has ever been. And that’s not necessarily a genie that we can put back in the bottle. And I think people need to acknowledge that and start thinking more broadly about what that means for the modern world.

Support independent journalism from the U.S.-Mexico border. Become a paid subscriber today for just $6 a month or $60 a year.

Subscribed

Thank you for subscribing and supporting The Border Chronicle. Please share this post with your friends and help us become sustainable. We appreciate your support!

Share

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

Undoubtedly, as noted in this interview, “the narrative around immigration and the border [has] become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point.”

The nativist GOP doesn’t want to acknowledge the reality of immigration, including by refugees and asylees, its inevitability, and its proven long-term benefits to America.

By contrast, Dems are afraid of the reality of immigration and too politically timid to stand up for the right to apply for asylum.

What both parties have in common is that they are perfectly willing to accept the benefits of immigration of all types — after all, this is a nation of immigrants — while denying the very humanity and the legal and human rights of those courageous and talented individual immigrants, of all types and statuses, who have built our nation and continue to do so. 🤯🤮👎🏽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

PWS

04-17-24

⚖️ BIA EXPANDS TO 28 APPELLATE JUDGES! — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: “Lest We Forget: The Ashcroft Purge of the BIA!”

Dan Kowalski reports:

This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/02/2024

“On April 1, 2020, the Department of Justice (“the Department” or “DOJ”) published an interim final rule (“IFR”) with request for comments that amended its regulations relating to the organization of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) by adding two Board member positions, thereby expanding the Board to 23 members. This final rule responds to comments received and adds five additional Board member positions, thereby expanding the Board to 28 members. The final rule also clarifies that temporary Board members serve renewable terms of up to six months and that temporary Board members are appointed by the Attorney General. DATES: This rule is effective on [April 2, 2024].”

[Note: Applicants are encouraged to apply NOW on the theory that spillover from the applicant pool for the current openings here and here might be considered for the additional five slots.]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

Ironically, particularly for those of us directly affected, the BIA had 23 authorized members a little over two decades ago!

Then, the infamous “Ashcroft purge” cut that number back to 12, citing bogus “efficiency grounds” to cover a scheme that ousted those BIA Judges who consistently stood up for due process, fundamental fairness, and migrants’ legal rights!

That sent the EOIR system into a tailspin which shook the Circuit Courts when almost immediately flooded with a tidal wave of deficient EOIR decisions, particularly relating to erroneous “adverse credibility rulings.”

The emasculated BIA, of course, rapidly proved too small to function in even a minimally competent manner. To “cover up” the adverse effects of Ashcroft’s political scheme, and to conceal the institutional failures of DOJ to protect individual rights of migrants, particularly those of color, Administrations of both parties resorted to the “gimmick” of quietly appointing “Temporary Board Members” from among BIA senior staff to keep the ship (sort of) afloat. Temporary Board Members were not allowed to vote at en banc conferences, had uncertain tenure, and had every incentive not to dissent or otherwise “rock the boat” if they wanted to compete for future “permanent” vacancies. (Although, arguably, the whole point of the Ashcroft purge was that all BIA judges were essentially “temporary” in the eyes of a GOP AG).

Over the decades following the purge, the DOJ gradually added permanent BIA Judge positions, without ever publicly acknowledging Ashcroft’s political scheme and its debilitating effects.

For a comprehensive history of the now long-forgotten “Ashcroft purge” at the BIA, see Peter Levinson’s scholarly masterpiece “The Facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications,” linked here: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/05/17/courtside-history-lest-we-forget-the-ashcroft-purge-at-the-bia-in-2003-destroyed-the-pretext-of-judicial-independence-at-eoir-forever-heres-how-read-peter-levinson/

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-02-24

🆘‼️ WANTED: BIA JUDGES WHO UNDERSTAND MIXED MOTIVE! 🤯 — 1st Cir. Outs Garland BIA’s Latest “Whack Job” On Asylum Seeker! — Khalil v. Garland — Forget The Nativist “Border BS,” THIS Is America’s REAL “Immigration Crisis!” ☠️

I want you — Pass Immigration 101? Understand “mixed motive” and how it should be used to protect, not reject? Willing to stand up for due process and the legal and human rights of migrants? Prepared to promote justice and resist the evil culture of “any reason to deny?” We need YOU on the BIA today! “Revolution by evolution” is a crock. We need an aggressive “Due Process Revolution” from within EOIR NOW!
Public Domain

youBhttps://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1443P-01A.pdf

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 23-1443

AMGAD SAMIR HALIM KHALIL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

Gelpí, Howard, and Rikelman,

Circuit Judges.

Saher J. Macarius, with whom Audrey Botros and Law Offices of Saher J. Macarius LLC were on brief, for petitioner.

Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for respondent.

Julian Bava, with whom Adriana Lafaille, Sabrineh Ardalan, Tiffany Lieu, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc., and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, were on brief, for amici curiae.

March 29, 2024

RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge.

. . . .

We turn, then, to Khalil’s argument that the factual record compels the conclusion that religion was at least one central reason for his beating. We review the factual finding

– 15 –

against Khalil on this issue under the substantial evidence standard. Pineda-Maldonado, 91 F.4th at 87.

Here, a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Khalil’s religion qualifies as a central reason for the beating. Khalil’s attackers demanded he convert, beat him when he refused to do so, demanded again that he convert, and beat him more intensely when he again refused. The attackers’ own statements show that, regardless of whatever else prompted the beating, Khalil would not have been harmed had he agreed to convert. See Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2021) (deeming perpetrators’ statements essential to the nexus determination); Ivanov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 5, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2013) (determining persecutors were driven by a religious motive that they “recognized and gave voice to” during their attack of the applicant); Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2008) (explaining that perpetrators’ statements “are a crucial factor” for determining the central reason for harm); cf. Esteban-Garcia v. Garland, 94 F.4th 186, 194 (1st Cir. 2024) (finding no nexus because persecutors “didn’t say anything” about the applicant’s protected ground).

The attackers’ demands that Khalil convert to another faith and their increased violence in response to his refusal to do so make this case unlike Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2008), which the IJ relied on in finding that the beating was

– 16 –

the result of a personal dispute only. In Sompotan, we held that the record did not compel the conclusion that those who robbed the petitioners and their restaurant while yelling “Chinese bastard, crazy Christian, crazy Chinese” were motivated by religious and racial animus rather than by a desire to rob because “[t]he fact that [robbers] would stoop to the level of using racial slurs is, unfortunately, not surprising.” 533 F.3d at 70. By contrast, the attackers here did not make just a passing reference to Khalil’s religion. Rather, they made religious demands on him during the attack and beat him more vigorously when he refused to cede to those demands.

The arguments the government offers as to why substantial evidence supports the agency’s no-nexus determination do not alter our conclusion. The government emphasizes that Khalil recounted his attackers’ demands that he convert only in his asylum interview and written declaration attached to his asylum application, but not in his testimony before the IJ. But in evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion, we are tasked with reviewing “the record as a whole.” Barnica-Lopez, 59 F.4th at 527. Further, at his hearing, Khalil described the beating exclusively during the government’s cross-examination, and the government strategically asked him only one question about what his attackers said during the beating: Did they reference the blood test results? The framing of the

– 17 –

government’s questions on cross-examination does not change our assessment of the record as a whole. The government also contends that, because Khalil testified that the imam had no issue with him until the imam found out about the blood test results, religion did not motivate the attack. But that argument ignores the attackers’ own words and actions.

For all these reasons, we find that the record compels the conclusion that Khalil’s religion played more than an incidental role in his beating. We therefore grant the petition for review as to Khalil’s asylum claim premised on mixed-motive persecution.5

. . . .

********************
Many congrats and much appreciation to the NDPA team involved in this litigation!👏🙏

Oh yeah, the BIA also screwed up the CAT analysis! 🤯

This is another classic example of deficient scholarship and an “any reason to deny culture” that Garland, inexplicably, has allowed to flourish in some parts of EOIR on his watch!

This is the REAL “immigration crisis” gripping America, and one that obviously could be solved with better-qualified judges and dynamic due-processed-focused leadership at EOIR!

“Revolution by evolution” is a meaningless piece of bureaucratic gobbledegook I sometimes heard during Dem Administrations to justify their often gutless, inept, and dilatory approach to due process at EOIR! What total poppycock! EOIR needs a dramatic “Due Process Revolution” from within! And, it needs it yesterday, with lives and the future of American justice on the line!

There’s an opportunity, open until April 12, 2024, to become a BIA Appellate Judge and start improving the trajectory of American justice at the “retail level!”

⚖️🗽👩🏾‍⚖️ CALLING NDPA ALL-STARS!🌟 — WANTED: BIA APPELLATE JUDGE DEDICATED TO DUE PROCESS, ASYLUM EXPERTISE, & PROMOTING BEST PRACTICES! — Apply By April 12, 2024! — Better Judges For A Better America!

Better judges for a better America! 👩🏾‍⚖️⚖️😎🗽🇺🇸

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-30-24

Hour

🤪 DISTORTED JUSTICE: From Inanely Denying Persecution To Ignoring Evidence, Garland’s Biased Courts Warp The Immigration Narrative By Improperly Rejecting Many Valid Claims!🤮

Two More Classic Examples of AG’s “Judicial Malpractice” With Lives At Stake From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

1. CA9 on Persecution: Singh v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/03/22/22-211.pdfl

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-persecution-singh-v-garland

“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Inna Lipkin!]

Inna Lipkin, Esquire
PHOTO: Law Office of Inna Lipkin

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

2. BIA Ignores Evidence, CA2 Remands

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4acba28-c76c-439c-bf1f-032d1674929f/15/doc/22-6420_so.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/bia-ignores-evidence-ca2-remands

Mendez Galvez v. Garland (unpub.)

“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”

[Hats off to H. Raymond Fasano!]

H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire
PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile

—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯

Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.

If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!

As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!

The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!

The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.

How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?

Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!

Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis” is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!

Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!

The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-28-24

🐦‍⬛JIM CROW LIVES IN TEXAS: GOP’S RACIST “CASTE SYSTEM” HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “SECURITY,” EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHITE NATIONALIST INSURRECTION! — 🐓🐥🐥🐥“Democrats cannot, should not, be bystanders. . . . ‘“Evil asks little of the dominant caste other than to sit back and do nothing.’” — Beatriz Lopez, Narrative Intervention, on Substack!

https://open.substack.com/pub/beatrizlopez/p/this-is-texas-theres-a-holdem?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios

Beatriz writes:

“A caste system is an artificial construction, a fixed and embedded ranking of human value that sets the presumed supremacy of one group against the presumed inferiority of other groups.”

― Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents

Last year, a dangerous and despotic Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law SB 4, heralding the legislation as a form of defense in his war against President Biden’s immigration policies that have apparently left Texas unsafe and vulnerable. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth; in fact, Texas is privileged to be the second state in the union with the largest immigrant population that has contributed over $40 billion in federal and state taxes, with a spending power of more than $110 billion. According to a report by the Immigration Research Initiative and Every Texan:

Once provided a work permit, new immigrants earn an average of $20,000 in their first year, which increases to $29,000 by their fifth year living in Texas. […] For every 1,000 workers, immigrants and asylum seekers contribute $2.6 million to state and local taxes within their first year of eligibility. Far from a burden on Texas communities, newly arrived immigrants and asylum seekers are as essential to our state’s economy as they are to our families and communities.”

Abbott and the state have reaped from the contributions of immigrant families, regardless of immigration status, only to waste millions in taxpayer dollars to cruelly militarize the border against their own border communities and the children and families seeking refuge and safety. With SB 4, Abbott and Texas would make it a felony for any undocumented immigrant to enter the state and empower local law enforcement and state judges to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.

. . . .

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

Read Beatriz’s complete article at the link.

The proposition, uncritically reported by many in media and mindlessly repeated by politicos of both parties, that effectively eliminating asylum at the border, thereby turning the ability to seek protection in the U.S. over to smugglers, cartels, and thugs, will “enhance security” is beyond preposterous! Obviously, it will do the exact opposite by improperly treating desperate individuals seeking legal protection from the U.S. the same as the small number of actual security threats who might seek to cross the border (at least some of whom are actually caught).

Just ask yourself the question that the media never presses on Abbott, DeSantis, Trump, GOP nativists, or their spineless Dem enablers: Why would a “real terrorist” spend weeks or months trying to get a “CBP One” appointment to be screened by CBP? Alternatively, why would such an individual risk the irregular border crossing and then turn themselves in to CBP for processing or wait weeks in filthy conditions to be processed by CBP? Answer: Obviously, they wouldn’t.

There are many easier ways for those smuggling or seeking to engage in criminal behavior to enter (think thousands of miles of lightly guarded Northern Border, false visas, entering legally at an airport under false pretenses, or concealing contraband in legitimate commerce — the way most fentanyl enters the U.S.). And, they are all “facilitated” by the USG’s insanely bad policy decision to concentrate “law enforcement” resources overwhelmingly on those who present no realistic threat and want only fair consideration of their legal claims! Sure it generates (largely misleading) “numbers,” but does little to actually enhance security.

Indeed, one might well suspect that the inordinate hoopla and intentionally exaggerated fears focused on asylum seekers is largely a “cover-up” and diversion from the Government’s poor record on dealing with the fentanyl crisis.

As I have repeatedly said, what if the Feds and states stopped disingenuously wasting unconscionable amounts resources on bogus enforcement and deterrence and instead invested in building a fair and timely asylum reception, screening, adjudication, and resettlement system that encouraged and rewarded those presenting themselves at ports of entry? That would make it easier for law enforcement to concentrate on those actually seeking to avoid our legal system (rather than inanely concentrating on those who merely want our legal system to fairly consider their claims)!

What would happen if the “mainstream media” actually fulfilled their professional, ethical, journalistic responsibilities to research, understand, and report honestly about the right to asylum, those seeking it, and those assisting them in presenting their claims to an intentionally hostile and dysfunctional system! What if the media stopped uncritically and irresponsibly reporting nativist propaganda, such as Abbott’s babbling, as “news,” and began concentrating on informing the public of the truth about asylum seekers, the legitimacy of many of their claims, and their great potential benefits to America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-25-24

🤯 INCREDIBLE! — Even Righty Judge Lawrence Van Dyke @ CA 9 Has Had His Fill Of Garland’s Badly Bumbling BIA Brethren! — Kalulu v. Garland — You Can Add Anti-Gay Stereotypes To The List Of Documented Charges Against Garland’s Deadly Clown Show! 🤡🤮☠️

Clown Parade — The “Clown Show” continues in full regalia at Garland’s EOIR. But, nobody’s laughing about the potentially deadly consequences! PHOTO: Public Domain

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 (2-1) on Credibility, Evidence: Kalulu v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/03/11/21-895.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-credibility-evidence-kalulu-v-garland

“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”

Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”

[Hats off to Amalia Wille and Judah Lakin!]

Amalia Wille ESQUIRE

Judah Lakin ESQUIRE

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!

As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯

Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.

Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.

The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!

The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!

So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, the BIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.

It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:

Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she

was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that

criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship

with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,

she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown

substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and

threatened with death over several violent encounters.

Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her

claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration

from her aunt in California, and declarations from several

Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,

however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or

trivial grounds.

I agree with the majority that the agency failed to

consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence

independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and

documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give

reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,

659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.

Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here

there is any indication that the agency did not consider all of

the evidence before it the decision cannot stand.” (cleaned

up)). Remand is required where, as here, the agency did not

give reasoned consideration to highly probative evidence

that may independently support Kalulu’s claims of past

persecution.

But the agency’s failure to consider the documentary

evidence was emblematic of other significant errors

underlying its adverse credibility determination. The most

egregious example? Disbelieving Kalulu’s claim that she is

a lesbian because she had not visited gay clubs or

participated openly in “LGBT activities” during her first five

months in the United States. As the majority recognizes,

two-thirds of the factors cited by the agency for its adverse

credibility determination were based on dubious

stereotyping, mischaracterizations of the testimony, or

purported inconsistencies not found in the record.

These charges of anti-gay bias and invidious stereotyping basically echo the serious findings of institutional racism and other “baked-in bias” at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR contained in the recent blockbuster Ohio Immigrant Alliance exposé of outrageous shenanigans @ EOIR under Garland! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/03/06/%F0%9F%A4%90-busted-eoir-squelches-ijs-union-administration-moves-to-silence-outspoken-uncensored-critic-of-dysfunctional-court-system-news-comes-on-heels-of/.

Even the White House, which has turned a willfully blind eye to Garland’s poor stewardship over the Immigration Courts, now feels the sting of Garland’s timid “leadership” and lackadaisical approach to “justice at Justice.” And, they don’t like it! Not one bit! See, e.g.,https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/11/hur-biden-garland-classified-white-house-congress/.

On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”

This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-12-24

🤮 THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE FEEDING US FEAR-DRIVEN BS 💩 ON THE BORDER (W/O Meaningful Pushback From the Complicit Media) — Get Some Constructive, Practical, Humane Alternatives From Rev. Craig Mousin and NIJC Policy Director Heidi Altman On The “Lawful Assembly” Podcast! 💡🗽😎⚖️

Heidi Altman
Director of Policy
National Immigrant Justice Center
PHOTO: fcnl.org

Craig on Linkedin:

Instead of listening to our two primary presidential contenders vie over which one is tougher on immigration, let’s consider reframing the debate for a meaningful immigration reform that benefits our nation instead of depriving it of resources wasted on ineffective enforcement policies:

Let’s Reshape Immigration Policy

Tweet Share Share

Today we talk about 10 points to reshape and improve immigration policy in the USA. We used the National Immigrant Justice Center’s 10 points as a backdrop for our discussion:

Let’s Reshape Immigration Policy

Lawful Assembly

FOLLOW

SHARE

0:00

38:45

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-reshape-immigration-policy/id1724492762?i=1000648467773

Show Notes

Today we talk about 10 points to reshape and improve immigration policy in the USA. We used the National Immigrant Justice Center’s 10 points as a backdrop for our discussion:

https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/humane-solutions-work-10-ways-biden-administration-should-reshape-immigration-policy

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-29/immigration-crisis-border-migrants-united-states-mexico-election-biden-trump

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

Listen to the podcast and get a copy of NIJC’s “ 10 points” at the above links.

Thanks, Craig, for highlighting the work of my friend and former Georgetown Law colleague Heidi Altman, Director of Policy at NIJC. Heidi is the embodiment of what real leadership, innovation, humane, creative thought on immigration and the border looks like. She stands in dramatic contrast to the pathetic fear mongering (Trump) and fear of standing up for values (Biden) “leadership” coming from our candidates and reflected in the failure of politicos of both parties to embrace humane, cooperative, beneficial solutions for those seeking asylum at the border.

Heidi is a particularly great representative and leadership role model for Women’s History Month.

I had additional thoughts on this podcast:

Better judges, not just more judges. To be effective and efficient, EOIR judges at both levels must be recognized experts in asylum, human rights, and due process who are not afraid to set positive precedents, grant protection to those who qualify under a properly generous interpretation of the law, simplify evidentiary requirements and state them in clear, practical terms, establish and enforce best practices, and steadfastly oppose the political abuse of the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” or as extensions of DHS enforcement. The failure of Garland to clean house at EOIR, particularly the BIA, and of Mayorkas to do likewise at the Asylum Office has been a national disaster driving much of the “disorder at the border.”
Incorporate “Judges Without Borders” into the solutions. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php. It’s a great concept waiting to happen!
Invest in VIISTA Villanova and other innovative programs to expand pro bono and low bono representation. See https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html. Reach beyond lawyers and NGOs to train students, retirees, social justice advocates, and “ordinary citizens” who want to help by becoming “Accredited Representatives” for “Recognized Organizations” and represent asylum seekers before the AO and EOIR. The programs is top-notch, online, and “scalable.” The Biden Administration’s failure to tap into it and “leverage” it is another dramatic failure of leadership.
Better leadership needed in the Biden Administration. As we have seen over the last three years, all the great ideas (and there is a plethora of them) in the world are meaningless without the dynamic, courageous, effective leadership to make it happen! Garland, Mayorkas, the White House Domestic Policy Office, and the Biden Campaign are dramatic negative examples of folks who lack the hands-on expertise, courage, creativity, and skills to lead on effective administrative immigration reform. I endorse Heidi’s proposal to create a White House Task Force. But, without expert, dynamic, empowered leadership, that Task Force will be ineffective. (Take it from me, over 35-years in the USG, I was on lots of “task forces” and other “action/study groups” whose voluminous reports and well-meaning proposals went directly into a dusty file cabinet or paper shredder.) Think Julian Castro, Dean Kevin Johnson, Judge Dana Marks, Professor Karen Musalo, Beatriz Lopez, Professor Michele Pistone, Anna Gallagher, Camille Mackler, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Heidi Altman, Alex Aleinikoff, Mary Meg McCarthy, Paula Fitzgerald, et al — any of these folks, or a combination, or other “battle tested experts” like them would be head and shoulders over the inept gang advising on and “implementing” (and I use this term loosely) immigration policy for the Administration and the campaign. Leadership counts! And, time’s a wasting to start fixing this asylum system before the election!
Acquiescence gets Dems the same place as activist racism. I “get” that the nativist border agenda now being shoved down our throats by both campaigns is driven by GOP fear-mongering and Dem acquiescence. That’s classic Jim Crow! I doubt that every White person south of the Mason-Dixon Line during my youth was overtly racist. Yet, a whole bunch of them were happy to acquiesce in segregation (and worse) because it served their political, social, or business purposes. For example, ”I’ve personally got nothing against Blacks, but if I hired one at my store all my business would go elsewhere.” In calling for “bipartisan” joining with the Trump-generated racist proposal to “close the border,” Biden and many of his supporters are basically endorsing a lawless, cruel, anti-humanitarian program that couldn’t succeed if enacted. Does that he might be doing it as an act of “political strategy,” “shifting the blame,” or “one-upmanship,” rather than “genuine” racism, xenophobia, and hate, like Trump and MAGA nation, somehow make it more palatable? Not to me!
Stop the candidate’s negative campaigning. If Joe can’t think of anything better to say about human rights and the border than to point fingers at the GOP and try and match Trump’s cruelty, lawlessness, and stupidity on the issue, better he say nothing at all.
Don’t get suckered by “whataboutism.” Undoubtedly, there are those in our community genuinely concerned that helping asylum seekers resettle and succeed will deflect resources and attention from existing problems like homelessness and poverty. Nevertheless, few, if any, of my friends and acquaintances who have actually spent their lives, or substantial portions thereof, helping the less fortunate in our communities express this fear. They believe that that if we treat all of our fellow humans as humans, we can expand opportunities and economic activities across the board so that there will be enough for everyone. It’s a derivation of something we say every Sunday at the community church we attend: “All are welcome at Christ’s table.” Also, asylum seekers and other migrants disproportionately give back to communities, particularly low income communities, rural communities, or others in need. By contrast, many of those raising these fears are the same GOP folks who steadfastly want to cut meals for kids, slash after-school programs, defund proven-to-work programs that reduce poverty, and restrict or limit other existing aid programs. It’s not like these folks would “repurpose” any of the very limited funds spent on assisting migrants to helping the homeless or the less fortunate. No, they would almost certainly spend it on more deadly, yet ineffective walls, “civil” prisons, unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, and/or more counterproductive, wasteful, costly border militarization. Don’t get suckered by their “crocodile tears” for the poor and needy!

Contrary to the BS 💩 that is peddled every day by the presidential candidates, spineless politicos of both parties, and the mainstream media, the border is solvable with common sense, humane, innovative legal reforms. More cruel, wasteful, and essentially mindless enforcement and restriction is NOT the answer, nor will it ever be!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-10-24

🗽 THE HUMANITY, DECENCY, HOPE, & PATIENCE OF THOSE SEEKING LEGAL REFUGE @ OUR BORDER CONTRASTS WITH THE BIPARTISAN LIES, MYTHS, & BIAS DRIVING OUR HORRIBLE POLITICAL “DIALOGUE” — “U.S. politicians treat migrants as dangerous, flat, or faceless, and claim enforcement is the only solution to the ‘crisis.’ A shelter in Nogales offers a different perspective.” — Todd Miller @ The Border Chronicle Reports From South Of The Border!

Todd Miller
Border Correspondent
Border Chronicle
PHOTO: Coder Chron

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/the-garden-at-the-migrant-shelter?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios

Todd writes:

When we entered the garden, Tomás’s face relaxed. We were at the Casa de la Misericordia de Todas las Naciones in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, where he had resided for six months with his wife, Cristina, and three children. Before we entered the garden, Cristina and Tomás told me that a criminal group had abducted their 20-year-old son, Carlos, in the small rural community where they lived in the mountains of the Mexican state of Guerrero. Carlos returned to the family, but they knew he was under threat, that the whole family was in danger. As we spoke under the shade of a large tree, children raced around and played on a swing set in front of a yellow building that housed primarily mothers with young children. About 120 people, including entire families, were staying at this shelter, which was designed for people seeking asylum. Cristina did most of the talking, but at the end Tomás asked me if I wanted to see the garden. Cristina had to return to the kitchen, which was her responsibility this week. For his part, Tomás had been the encargado of the garden, in charge of it, he told me, since they arrived.

He showed me the radishes, the calabazas, the zanahoria. He showed me what remained of the tomatoes and chiles that got blasted by the cold. He showed me the lombrices, earthworms burrowing in the composting soil topped with banana peels. As he showed me all the plants, Tomás talked about how much he loved farming, how much he loved planting seeds, how much he liked caring for these plants and watching them grow. In Guerrero he had tended his milpa (small parcel of land) of squash, beans, and corn every day. As he spoke, I tried to envision his rural mountain community; over the years I have met many campesinos, small farmers, across southern Mexico, in his state of Guerrero, in Oaxaca, in Chiapas. Having knelt in the soil of the milpas before, I understood how this small garden in Nogales was like a sanctuary, especially in the face of a scary situation, as Cristina and Tomás had told me, away from home, away from your roots, your child’s life in danger, wondering if you would get asylum. When they arrived six months earlier, they applied for asylum on the glitchy, confusing, and difficult-to-use CBP One app with the help of staff at the Casa, a service they offer to all people staying in the shelter. Tomás told me that when things got stressful, “I come here to the garden. And the stress goes away.” He made a motion with his hand. His hand then touched the soil, searching for the plants. He looked up, and his face was serene.

From where we talked in the garden, we had a sweeping view of Nogales. The Casa is perched on a hill above a working-class neighborhood called Bella Vista, where the bustle often starts in the early morning as maquila workers head to the factories. For line workers making Samsonite suitcases, General Electric lightbulbs, or Masterlocks, the wages are a pittance—giving Nogales a feel of a city in constant strain and struggle.

Also, from the Casa you can look north toward the border with Arizona. Last Thursday, President Joe Biden and Donald Trump came to the border in “dueling visits,” but in faraway Brownsville and Eagle Pass, Texas. People like Tomás and Cristina and family were in the news again, not as their full human selves but as flat numbers and statistics. The “narrative of overwhelm,” as Erika Pinheiro put to The Border Chronicle in an audio interview, was full steam ahead. Alarmist rhetoric filled the airwaves, including the omnipresent “record numbers” of people crossing in every report. In Brownsville, in a proposal that might have seemed like fiction if we went back in time to the 2020 campaign, Biden challenged Trump to “show a little spine” and help him tighten the border by supporting the enforcement-heavy border bill shot down by the Senate in early February. For Trump’s part, he referred to people crossing the border as the “Joe Biden invasion”and as a “vicious violation to our country.” At this point in a heating-up U.S. presidential campaign, the age-old depiction of migrants as either dangerous or a mass of faceless numbers arriving to the benevolent U.S. doorstep was in full effect. More enforcement, both sides were clearly stating, was the solution.

Tomás knelt down to the soil. He showed me the garlic and onions he had planted as an experiment. “Do you want to try a radish?” he asked me in Spanish. “Yes,” I said, “please.” He plucked a radish out of the soil. I wiped off the soil and took a bite. I don’t know if it was because I was hungry (I was), or if it was the force of the stories Tomás and Cristina had shared (probably that too), or just watching Tomás work the soil, tenderly touch the plants, his face soft and concentrated, the perils of asylum-seeker limbo temporarily forgotten, that I knew that this type of care would render something delicious. The radish was so succulent that I finished it too quickly, but I was too bashful to ask for another, even though I wanted one. We could still hear the voices of playing kids coming up from below; there were people from all over Mexico, from Central America, from Peru, Colombia, and from across the world like China, Iran, and Senegal. Before talking with Tomás and Cristina, I visited the tortillería, where three young men worked making tortillas. I visited a workshop where people made weavings and other art projects.

I visited a gigantic bread oven—where people from different countries baked bread in their own traditions, and I visited the kitchen and dining room where banners celebrating the Chinese New Year hung from the walls. One new year celebratory sign read in English, “Be patient, Be light, Be love, Be you!” Another read in Spanish, “La amabilidad es la llave de todas las fortunas” (Friendliness is the key to all fortune).

The shelter is run by its director, Alma Angélica Macías, but the effort was a community one, and a binational one. I was there with a small group of people from the Good Shepherd UCC church in Arizona who bring food to the Casa every Thursday. And given that the shelter allows people to stay as long as the asylum process takes, the Casa had a feel of a multinational hub where people of different nationalities had formed deep bonds, and as I stood there with Tomás, I was moved by this beautiful, alternative view of the border that rarely sees the light of day in the media.

Right as I was about to leave the garden, Tomás’s 20-year-old son came to ask him a question. Tomás introduced me to Carlos, and as I looked into his young face, I remembered the threats to his life that had led them there. As I stood waiting, they talked among themselves, and I thought again about the presidential race, the constant push for more border enforcement, the rightward drift of that debate, the talk that the U.S. government was going to clamp down even harder on asylum seekers—all while watching the father and son talk in calm, sweet tones in that lovely garden. When they were finished, there was a pause. One last moment to take in the garden and the sweeping view around us. I used the pause to thank Tomás for showing me the garden, for showing me his gift with the land. I didn’t know what to say except that I thought it was beautiful and that I felt inspired. And then—after a quick, tender, and vulnerable look to young Carlos, who was still by his side—Tomás told me, as if he didn’t want to have to say it, “I hope they give us asylum.”

*For the story, I altered the names of the family from Guerrero at the request of the shelter.

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

Click the above link for the original article with Todd’s wonderful border photography!

As I often say, we can diminish ourselves as a nation, (as both Trump and Biden are doing with their “misleading dehumanizing rhetoric” and spineless “scapegoating”), but it won’t stop human migration. Dehumanization and victimization in the end highlight the humanity of the victims while diminishing the dehumanizers.

Notably, this family has spent months trying “to do things the right way” by scheduling an appointment through the woefully inadequate “CBP One App” and appointment system. Yet, it appears that they have not even been given the interview to which they are entitled by law, nor have they been given a date for the fair merits adjudication they deserve!

The immense backlogs that everyone complains about (and which actually hurt legitimate asylum seekers like Tomás and his family) are largely self-created by years of USG over-investment in ridiculously expensive and ultimately ineffective enforcement accompanied by grotesque “under-investment” in timely, professional, and humane screening and adjudication of claims.

Both Biden and Trump know or should know that “the app” and the system it engenders are hopelessly defective. Yet, rather than moving to fix it (Biden) or urging supporters to invest in fixing it (Trump), both candidates shamelessly dump on the victims of their joint misfeasance and urge “further punishment” of those victims, apparently to “CTAs” for their own legal and moral failures.

Such is the “bogus border debate” — actually not a “debate” but rather a “one-sided nationalistic lie-fest” highlighted by obscene finger-pointing and journalistic malpractice on a catastrophic scale. All this happens with human lives and the very future of our democratic republic hanging in the balance!

Eventually, the judgement history on this disingenuous “bipartisan exercise in neofascism” will fall on the shameless politicos, the complicit media, and those who fail to call them out for their lies and misdeeds. Whether that judgement will come in time to save Tomás, Cristina, Carlos, and others like them seeking only justice and humanity from our nation is a different question. Like Tomás, one can only hope!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-24

🤐 BUSTED! — EOIR SQUELCHES IJS’ UNION — Administration Moves To Silence Outspoken, Uncensored Critic Of Dysfunctional Court System! — NEWS COMES ON HEELS OF BLOCKBUSTER REPORT ON SYSTEMIC RACISM, BIAS, AND HORRIBLY FLAWED JUSTICE AT EOIR!🤯

Censorship — “AG Garland & EOIR Executives holding a strategy session.”
“CENSORSHIP” “PUBLIC SENTIMENT” “NATIONAL CENSOR” “LOCAL CENSOR” “STATE CENSOR” art by Holmet – Motion Picture Magazine (Feb-May 1916) (IA motionpicturemag111moti) (page 151 crop).jpg
Public Domain

Elliot Spagat reports for AP:

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-courts-judges-union-backlog-751f55a0ae60af5c04d6c0ca420d36ae

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 53-year-old union of immigration judges has been ordered to get supervisor approval to speak publicly to anyone outside the Justice Department, potentially quieting a frequent critic of heavily backlogged immigration courts in an election year.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has spoken regularly at public forums, in interviews with reporters and with congressional staff, often to criticize how courts are run. It has advocated for more independence and free legal representation. The National Press Club invited its leaders to a news conference about “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”

The Feb. 15 order requires Justice Department approval “to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews).” Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge, referred to a 2020 decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to strip the union of collective bargaining power and said its earlier rights were “not valid at present.”

The order prohibits speaking to Congress, news media and professional forums without approval, said Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, an umbrella organization that includes the judges’ union. He said the order contradicted President Joe Biden’s “union-friendly” position and vowed to fight it.

“It’s outrageous, it’s un-American,” said Biggs. “Why are they trying to silence these judges?”

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the above link.

Courtesy of my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis, here’s the text of what is being called the “McNulty Ukase:”

From: Chief Immigration Judge, OCIJ (EOIR)
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Tsankov, Mimi (EOIR) ; Cole, Samuel B. (EOIR)
Cc: Weiss, Daniel H (EOIR) ; Luis, Lisa (EOIR) ; Young, Elizabeth L. (EOIR) ; Anderson, Jill (EOIR) <

Subject: Public Engagements and Speaking Requests

Dear Judges Cole and Tsankov:

From recent awareness of your public engagements, I understand you are of the impression that your positions in the group known as the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) permit you to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews) without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary. The agency understands this is a point of contention for you, but any bargaining agreement related to that point that may have existed previously is not valid at present. Please consider this email formal notice that you are subject to the same policies as every EOIR employee. To ensure consistency of application of agency policies—and prevent confusion among our staff—please review the SET policy and work with your supervisor to ensure your compliance with it, effective immediately.

Thank you,

Sheila McNulty

Chief Immigration Judge

Executive Office for Immigration Review • Department of Justice

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

It’s perhaps no surprise. EOIR is a badly failing agency with an incredible ever-growing backlog of over 3 million cases, no plan for reducing it, antiquated procedures, a disturbing number of questionably-qualified judges (many holdovers from the Trump era), grotesque decisional inconsistencies, poor leadership, a tragic record of ignoring experts’ recommendations for improvements, and that produces a steady stream of sloppy, poorly-reasoned, or clearly erroneous decisions on the “nuts and bolts” of asylum and immigration law that are regularly “roasted” by Circuit Judges across the political spectrum.

In this context, their desire to strangle criticism from those actually trying to provide justice and due process, against the odds — the sitting Immigration Judges who see the management and systemic problems on a daily basis — is perhaps understandable, if not defensible.

At least where immigration is involved, the Biden Administration’s rhetoric and promises on being “labor friendly” and supportive of Federal workers is unfortunately reminiscent of its pledge to treat asylum seekers and immigrants fairly and humanely and to distance themselves from the racially-driven xenophobic policies of the Trump Administration.

While the NAIJ may be “gagged,” the fight about working conditions and the unrelenting dysfunction at EOIR is far from over!

Sources close to the NAIJ’s parent union, the IFPTE, tell me that the “campaign to call out this atrocity” is “just getting started.”

In statement issued yesterday, IFPTE President Matt Biggs expressed outrage and raised the possibility that the Administration could face tough Congressional questioning on the gag order, which also applies to communications with legislators and legislative staff:

“Just because a highly partisan decision by the FLRA’s board, that is likely to be reversed, limited NAIJ’s ability to collectively bargain, doesn’t mean that NAIJ and its national union IFPTE can’t meet and confer with the DOJ, provide legal services to our members, have officers serve on professional committees, speak to the media, offer training and other services a union provides,” says Biggs. “In fact, for the past four years, NAIJ, with assistance from IFPTE, has provided all of that. We give judges a voice. Judge Tsankov regularly speaks to reporters and recently testified before Congress. This is an attempt to limit what the press and public know by placing a gag over the mouths of the judges on the front lines. The only thing that has changed in the past four years is an overreach by a federal bureaucrat.”

NAIJ has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the size of the backlog, the need for translators, raised courtroom security concerns and other issues related to immigration adjudication. It has been a strong advocate for judicial independence and questioned why the immigration courts are attached to the Department of Justice, rather than being placed in an independent agency. The National Press Club recently invited both Tsankov and Cole to speak at a news conference on “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”

“We believe that this order and un-American, anti-union act of censorship by McNulty will lead to Congressional hearings,” said Biggs. “Until this matter is resolved, the judges’ national union, IFPTE, will act as the voice for the immigration judges. McNulty may try, but the nation’s immigration judges won’t be silenced.”

As noted by Biggs, over the years, NAIJ leadership has frequently been asked to testify before Congress and meet with staff as an independent counterpoint to the “party line, everything is under control” nonsense that has become a staple of DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in administrations of both parties in dealing with the Hill as the backlog continued to explode in plain view!

Although the Biden Administration has curiously shown little hesitation in throwing asylum seekers, human rights, and advocates who were a key support group in 2020 “under the bus” in an ill-advised attempt to “out-Trump-Trump” on stupidity and inhumanity at the border, the IFPTE could be a different animal. Representing more than 80,000 government professionals, the union endorsed Biden/Harris in 2020.

With a hotly-contested, close election underway, Biden can ill-afford to alienate more key support groups, particularly among organized labor. Why the “geniuses” in the White House and the Biden/Harris Campaign think that going to war with your base is a great, “winning” strategy, is beyond me! Even Donald Trump recognizes the benefit of energizing behind him a loyal and committed (although horribly misguided) “base!”

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

Tellingly, and illustrating this issue’s cosmic importance, the Ohio Immigrant Alliance just released its blockbuster report documenting systemic racism at EOIR entitled “The System Works As Designed: Immigration Law, Courts, & Consequences” —

https://illusionofjustice.org/read/lawcourtsandconsequences

Here’s the Executive Summary:

Executive Summary

This report is based on the experiences of immigrants, lawyers, and immigration court observers, as well as external research. “The System Works as Designed” reveals how U.S. immigration laws, and the courts themselves, were planted on a foundation of white supremacy, power imbalance, and coercive control. For those reasons, they fail to protect human dignity and lives on a daily basis.

While the operations of the immigration courts have frequently been ignored, their outcomes could not be more consequential to immigrants and their loved ones. This report lifts the curtain.

Racism in Immigration Law and Policies

It is clear from the congressional record, and laws themselves, that the Chinese Exclusion Act, Undesirable Aliens Act, Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1924 and 1952, and other laws played on racial and ethnic stereotypes to limit mobility and long-term settlement of non-white immigrants.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 attempted to address some imbalances, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act basically broke the already contradictory set of laws, making them a landmine for immigrants attempting to seek safety or build new lives here. The REAL ID Act and other post-9/11 laws and policies tightened the vise.

Policy choices made by presidents from every modern administration have attempted to coerce, repress, and reject migration, a basic human survival act, instead of building safe paths people can use.

Death Penalty Consequences, Traffic Court Rules

The U.S. immigration courts were designed to offer the illusion of justice, while failing the people they purport to protect. Dysfunctional elements include:

A quasi-judicial structure that answers to the U.S. Attorney General in the Executive Branch and is not an independent judiciary; is blatantly influenced by ideology; and promotes quantity over quality decision making.

Power imbalances, such as the fact that the government is represented by attorneys 100% of the time, while immigrants often argue their cases without a legal guide. Detained immigrants are forced to “attend” their hearings via grainy video feed, while judges and counsel are together in courtrooms miles away. Yet immigration judges frequently deny requests for expert witnesses to appear remotely, citing challenges with communication and credibility. The deck is stacked.

4

Also, by detaining someone in jail for the duration of their civil immigration case, the government makes it harder for them to get a lawyer to help. The government is also using the psychological, financial, and physical toll of detention to try to break someone’s spirits and get them to give up.

Subjective “credibility determinations,” rife for bias and abuse. A case can be denied based on a judge’s feeling about the immigrant’s testimony, not facts. This is the barn door through which all manner of ignorance, bias, and ideology storm in.

Legal landmines make it harder for people who qualify for asylum to receive it, such as the one-year filing deadline; illogical definition of material support to terrorism; and the Biden asylum ban.

Differing standards of accuracy. Immigrants may be furnished interpreters who speak the wrong dialect. Judges and DHS attorneys may make inaccurate statements about an individual’s evidence or the political conditions of their country. The hearing transcripts can be riddled with gaps instead of key facts. Yet life-altering decisions are made based on this record, and an immigrant has little to no opportunity to object, correct, or explain.

Consider the experience of M.D. a Black Mauritanian man seeking asylum in the U.S. after the late 1980s/early 1990s genocide. An immigration judge questioned his credibility because M.D. did not provide “evidence” that he is Black and Fulani, a persecuted group in Mauritania. M.D. addressed the court, speaking in Fulani, and said, “I am the evidence. I speak Fulani and I am Black.”

The English transcript of M.D.’s hearing is riddled with “(unintelligible)” in place of the names of relatives and locations where important events, such as the murder of his father, took place. There was an interpreter in the room who could have spelled the words out to make the record more accurate and credible. Instead, the record shows big holes in place of material facts, while M.D. was accused of not providing “proof” that he is Black, deemed not credible, denied asylum.

In another case, a Black man seeking asylum was found “not credible” because his interpreter first used the word “canoe” when describing his method of escape, and later said “little boat.” But in his language and, one can argue, in common English, they are the same thing.

Situations like these, memorialized in the case record, are carried into the appeals process where rehearings typically do not take place, compounding the injustices of these mistakes.

Many of the report’s observations echo some aspects my own writings and public speeches over the years since I retired from the bench in June 2016. For example, here’s my speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW“ from from an FBA Conference in Austin, Texas in May 2019:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FBA-Austin-Central-America-—-Intro.docx

While I was speaking during the Trump Administration, sadly, many of my observations remain equally true today, as the Biden Administration and AG Garland have quite inexcusably failed to rise to the occasion by instituting long-overdue due process and quality control reforms at EOIR. Yet, I am struck by how even then, as today, I found reasons to continue to be proud of the accomplishments of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”) and to urge others to continue to believe that the “light of due process will eventually be relit” at EOIR and that history will deal harshly with the xenophobic urges and anti-asylum attitudes that too often drive policy in administrations of both parties:

Today, the Immigration Courts have become an openly hostile environment for asylum seekers and their representatives. Sadly, the Article III Courts aren’t much better, having largely “swallowed the whistle” on a system that every day blatantly mocks due process, the rule of law, and fair and unbiased treatment of asylum seekers. Many Article IIIs continue to “defer” to decisions produced not by “expert tribunals,” but by a fraudulent court system that has replaced due process with expediency and enforcement.

But, all is not lost. Even in this toxic environment, there are pockets of judges at both the administrative and Article III level who still care about their oaths of office and are continuing to grant asylum to battered women and other refugees from the Northern Triangle. Indeed, I have been told that more than 60 gender-based cases from Northern Triangle countries have been granted by Immigration Judges across the country even after Sessions’s blatant attempt to snuff out protection for battered women in Matter of A-B-. Along with dependent family members, that means hundreds of human lives of refugees saved, even in the current age.

Also significantly, by continuing to insist that asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle be treated fairly in accordance with due process and the applicable laws, we are making a record of the current legal and constitutional travesty for future generations. We are building a case for an independent Article I Immigration Court, for resisting nativist calls for further legislative restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, and for eventually holding the modern day “Jim Crows” who have abused the rule of law and human values, at all levels of our system, accountable, before the “court of history” if nothing else!

Eventually, we will return to the evolving protection of asylum seekers in the pre-2014 era and eradicate the damage to our fundamental values and the rule of law being done by this Administration’s nativist, White Nationalist policies. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about.

That brings me back to two of my “key takeaways” from the Ohio Immigrant Alliance Report.

First: “Withholding is a true limbo status, though better than being sent back to certain death.” Skillfully and aggressively using the system to save lives, in any way possible, is job one. A life saved is always a victory!

Second, as the report concludes:

Solutions exist, but they require policymakers and legislators to listen to the people with direct, personal experience. Ramata, cited earlier in this report, suggests quicker approval of cases found credible at the outset. Aliou wants judges to put more stock in migrants’ testimony, understanding that persecuting governments are not credible sources about their own abuse. Jennifer, one of the immigration lawyers we interviewed, suggested that Black immigrant organizations and the American Immigration Lawyers Association be involved in crafting a new direction, citing their extensive expertise with how the system works—and fails people.

Bill, another immigration lawyer interviewed for this report, suggests taking a page from the refugee resettlement program when it comes to verifying facts about a case. “Social workers and private investigators [could] interview people and research documents and try to … verify whether [they’re] telling the truth or not,” he said. Bill suggests employment counselors, ESL teachers, and others with specialized expertise could also assist in the processing of cases.

Most importantly, the asylum and immigration system must be reoriented toward prioritizing safety and resettlement, rather than deportation as the default outcome. The forthcoming report, “Behind Closed Doors: Black Migrants and the Hidden Injustices of US Immigration Courts,” will explore these and other solutions.

As I have observed many times, despite the “national BS” on asylum and immigration being traded by Trump and Biden, and the legislative gridlock, there are still plenty of readily available, non-legislative solutions out there that would dramatically improve due process, justice, and the life-saving capacity of the EOIR system. While no single one of them is a “silver bullet” that would solve all problems overnight, each is an important step in the right direction. Taken together, they would substantially improve the quality and quality of justice overall in our U.S. legal system and, perhaps, in the process, save our republic from demise.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-06-24

This article has been revised to include an excerpt from the IFPTE press release.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸🗽 BIDEN MUST STOP FUELING THE XENOPHOBIC NARRATIVE ABOUT THE BORDER, SAYS MIGRATION EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO @ LA TIMES — “[T]hat narrative is false: The border is manageable, and rather than being a danger to Americans, immigrants are a net positive economically and socially.”

Karen writes in the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9f2230a5-0663-484d-ae19-a64bb095d7ac

Multiple news sources report that President Biden is considering implementing executive action to try to close the U.S.-Mexico border, including to asylum seekers. It would be an extreme move, and a violation of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the country’s international obligation to protect those fleeing persecution. Only one other president — Donald Trump — has blatantly breached that obligation before. With the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext, Trump invoked Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which allowed him to curb migration in the name of public health.

Biden, who came into office harshly criticizing his predecessor’s anti-immigrant policies, now seems poised to resurrect them. Administration sources concede that the president’s border plans are driven by politics, the belief that the immigration situation is “an election liability.”

This view is no surprise. We’ve been fed a narrative that the border is in crisis, overwhelmed by an unprecedented number of immigrants who pose a grave danger to the health and safety of the nation. But that narrative is false: The border is manageable, and rather than being a danger to Americans, immigrants are a net positive economically and socially.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link. Thanks for speaking out, Karen!

If only Biden & Harris would listen to migration experts rather than those who erroneously claim that violating asylum laws and stomping on human and civil rights is a “winning political strategy!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-92-24

🤯☠️ SURPRISE (NOT): SPINELESS 🐥 DEMS, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, REPORTERS AFRAID TO CONSULT EXPERTS, HEAR FROM THOSE THEY DEHUMANIZE & CONDEMN! — Report By Todd Miller @ The Border Chronicle! — “It is for those who view politics as merely a game to be won rather than a moral terrain to advance the greatest good of all people. If you were to take this logic to its extreme, Democrats could also support an abortion ban or decertify the 2020 election. I mean, where does it end? President Biden could get that face-off surgery and become Trump himself.”

Spineless Dem politicos think that by ignoring the deadly human consequences of their sell-out to the nativist right, they will escape moral accountability. This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/the-bipartisan-border-consensus-moves?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

The Bipartisan Border Consensus Moves Right: A Q&A with Media Analyst Adam Johnson

“I went through dozens of reports, scores of articles, on the discussion of this migration bill, and the reporters talked to zero migrants and zero migrant rights groups.”

TODD MILLER

FEB 22

In recent weeks, longtime media analyst Adam Johnson has been looking through scores of articles and analyzing Democrats’ rhetoric to see how the border was being framed. One of the texts he looked at was the emergency national security supplemental bill that emerged for a vote on the Senate floor. This bipartisan border bill had been at the negotiation table for months, and it included provisions for military aid for Ukraine and Israel. The bill was ultimately voted down, after Donald Trump rejected it and the Republican Party followed suit. In our conversation, Johnson talks about his deep dive into the coverage surrounding the deal, and he speculates on what that means in this election year: that Democrats have entered new political terrain around the border and immigration enforcement. This interview is based on articles Johnson wrote for The Real News (“Media ‘Border Deal’ Coverage Erases Actual Human Stakes ”) and The Nation (“The Democrats’ Hard-Right Turn on Immigration Is a Disaster In Every Way”), both places that he contributes to regularly. He also wrote “Top 10 Media Euphemisms for Violent Bipartisan Anti-immigrant Policies,” at his Substack, The Column. Johnson cohosts the popular podcast Citations Needed, where they discussed the border on their February 21 edition. Johnson’s media analysis spans back nearly a decade, much of it for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.

Adam Johnson

Let’s start with the “border deal.” In The Real News you write that it dehumanizes migrants. Can you tell us a little bit about what the border deal is, and some key points about the coverage?

It’s a Republican border deal by framing and admission. Senators Chris Murphy, Tina Smith, and Mark Warner have framed it as a Republican border deal. Almost entirely. It is a 90 to 95 percent Republican deal in nature. They’ve repeatedly said that Republicans demanded XYZ and they gave them XYZ. This is how they’re framing it, because otherwise the hypocrisy gotcha doesn’t really work.

Can you clarify what you mean by “hypocrisy gotcha”?

If it’s not an overwhelming Republican bill, then the idea that they’re abandoning their won bill in service of Trump—which has been their primary gotcha—doesn’t make sense.

But let’s look at the substance of what the bill is.

Among other things, it has $8 billion in emergency funding for ICE, which more than doubles ICE’s enforcement budget. Do you remember “abolish ICE,” back five years ago or so?

It includes $3 billion in increased detention, a mechanism to shut down the border, and $7 billion to Customs and Border Protection, including the continuation of Trump’s wall. And so this is both objectively and how the Democrats describe a far-right Republican bill. That’s the appeal of it.

And the clever idea behind this is that a typical triangulation, that is, if you take a right-wing policy and adopt it as your own, you therefore take away that issue a little quicker come election time. It is for those who view politics as merely a game to be won rather than a moral terrain to advance the greatest good of all people. If you were to take this logic to its extreme, Democrats could also support an abortion ban or decertify the 2020 election. I mean, where does it end? President Biden could get that face-off surgery and become Trump himself.

. . . .

All this is laundered through euphemism, which I wrote about on my Substack and in The Real News, where I talk about the various ways in which the human costs are obscured. According to the International Organization for Migration, the U.S.-Mexico border is the deadliest land crossing in the world. And so if you double the enforcement, and triple the broader security apparatus, bring in more surveillance drones, more weapons, invariably more people will die. There is a real human cost to this type of militarization.

. . . .

Keep in mind, too, that Biden in 2020 mobilized a lot of the immigration activists who opposed Trump’s policies. He rode that wave to pick up a lot of young votes, a lot of progressive voters, a lot of people who are sympathetic to or adjacent to immigrant communities. And this cruel policy shift has really moved them to the right. In the days after Democrats embrace this hard-right bill, Trump began to double down on things like internment camps, shipping off immigrants, because he has to differentiate himself from the Democrats, at least rhetorically.

We’re gonna have this fortress America mentality. No one wants to deal with any of the underlying issues. And we have to deal with global inequality. No one wants to deal with climate change. That’s too egg heady and academic and difficult. We’re just going to do what we always do, which is cops and cages. And cops and cages are the solution to every social ill, whether it’s homelessness, crime, or whatever. That’s the order of the day. The bipartisan consensus. Democrats and Republicans both want it. The worst place for a vulnerable group to be is on the business end of a bipartisan consensus.

. . . .

Many Border Chronicle readers are interested in shifting the narrative. But how do you shift the narrative? Is it just too entrenched?

Some members of Congress have pushed back on this. But I think they’ve been pretty quiet. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back in an interview, but I don’t think she’s really tweeted about it. Once you have this “we have to defeat Trump in 2024 above all else,” then everybody shuts up and goes along with it.

And I think that’s absolutely wrong. I think now is the time to stand up to this demagoguery. Adopting a Republican bill is not the solution. And, hopefully, if enough people stand up to this, then it can become politically costly for Democrats to continue doing this.

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

Read the full report at the link.

The worst place for a vulnerable group to be is on the business end of a bipartisan consensus.

These days, on immigration issues the term “bipartisan consensus” is actually a euphemism for “Dem giveaway of others’ rights to GOP nativists.” And, of course, even after the giveaway, the GOP shows absolutely no interest is such one-sided “bipartisanship” because Der Fuhrer tells them they must vote it down.

Yet, the disingenuous media and pundits keep misusing the term “bipartisanship” as if it had real meaning! And, although holding power in two of the three political branches, while the GOP struggles mightily to cling to its narrow margin in one, Biden and the Dems “wimp out” time after time on immigration, human rights, and racial justice.

The GOP proudly advertises that it has no values beyond whatever Trump wants on any particular day.

By contrast, Dems claim to have values. But a campaign being run against those professed values and their own core voters suggests that they too have become a “transactional party of no enduring values.”

Does America really need two political parties that stand for nothing beyond gratuitous cruelty to others and getting elected?

“Go along to get along.” Unhappily, that’s what today’s Dems appear to stand for.

Frankly, that has been at the heart of many of the problems at EOIR, particularly in Dem Administrations that were afraid of taking the bold and sometimes controversial actions necessary to change culture, institutionalize due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. Current AG Merrick Garland is a classic example of this failed Dem model. As a result, EOIR is a dramatically dysfunctional and unjust agency.

Will the Democratic Party keep mindlessly following in EOIR’s footsteps? What’s it going to take for the next generation of Democrats to halt the slide into moral vapidity and political irrelevance?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-23-24

⚾️🤯 “CAN’T ANYBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME?” — BIDEN’S “BUSH LEAGUE” DISSING OF ASYLUM SEEKERS & THEIR PROGRESSIVE SUPPORTERS COULD BE “STRIKE THREE” FOR OUR DEMOCRACY!😞 — Baseball Is A Great Example Of How Biden’s “Miller Lite” Approach To Immigration & Ignoring The Experts Is Wrong & Costly! — “[T]here are no curses except those that are self-inflicted by cheap, regressive thinking.”🤯

Casey Stengel — “The Dems’ wrong-headed “Miller Lite” approach to immigration and the border would leave Casey scratching his head. With “major league talent” available, they have put an “amateur night at the Bijou” team on the field for what is perhaps the most important season in modern American history!
PHOTO: Rudi Reit
Creative Commons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/21/baseball-immigrants-diversity/

Jaswinder Bolina writes in WashPost:

As a former president of the United States excoriates immigrants for “poisoning the blood” of our country, as the governors of Texas and my current home state of Florida bus and fly migrants to points north — including my hometown, Chicago — my thoughts turn to baseball.

. . . .

While that inhospitable bunch has been villainizing migrants and refugees as a strain on U.S. resources, I have been marveling at how much foreign-born players have enlivened (and enriched) baseball in recent decades. Far from being poisoned, the sport has been rejuvenated by infusions of immigrants from Ohtani to Soto to Ronald Acuña Jr., Yordan Álvarez, Ha-Seong Kim, the Cubs’ Seiya Suzuki and so many others.

As these non-White non-Americans wow — and earn — millions with their transcendent talents, in a sport still emerging from its startlingly racist past, bigoted fictions about the “blood of our country” are being exposed. It’s true that baseball is still struggling with exploitative international recruiting practices, decreasing numbers of U.S.-born Black players and a lack of diversity among its executive ranks. Yet the increasing number of foreign-born major leaguers now counted among the best in the game’s long history dispels the self-aggrandizing myth that the United States possesses any monopoly on excellence.

The Republican presidential front-runner might argue that undocumented migrants and refugees aren’t elite athletes and are instead “animals” arriving from “s—hole countries.” But such dehumanizing insults are not only guilty of offensive fixation on national origin, ethnicity and race. They also mistake a person’s predicament for a person’s potential.

This is made plain by the origin stories of some of baseball’s biggest stars. Those same players who fashioned makeshift mitts out of milk cartons and cardboard, who rose to the game’s highest levels through arduous, harrowing and near-tragic journeys, might have languished on the other side of a barbed and militarized wall if this country’s right wing had its way.

The politicians who would build those walls, who attack immigrants for supposedly burdening our national resources, need only consider baseball’s explosive growth into a $10 billion industry and the financial value of Ohtani alone to the Dodgers — some estimate the team could make more than $1 billion off his deal over the course of a decade — to see that industries and economies thrive by inclusion, not exclusion.

Even so, ideologues seek to end inclusive practices in private industry and public education. They guarantee endless winning and new revolutions by promising to slash resources and wall off our country — all while whiffing on the most rudimentary of winning principles understood by most every baseball fan in America:

Great teams are made great by deep, diversified rosters. They are built on investment in both homegrown and international talent. And there are no curses except those that are self-inflicted by cheap, regressive thinking.

As the Republican presidential primary churns toward that party’s national convention, coincidingthis July with baseball’s annual All-Star Game, all of this will be evident to anyone ready to take a break from the campaign, take a seat in the bleachers and take in the world’s greatest ballplayers thriving at America’s game.

Jaswinder Bolina is a poet and essayist. His latest book is “English as a Second Language and Other Poems.”

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

Read the full op-ed at the above link!

“Mistaking a person’s predicament for a person’s potential!” That’s exactly what Biden’s new-found attacks on asylum seekers and their advocates (his 2020 supporters!) are doing!

Biden is flying in the face of the sage advice for running on a pro-immigration, pro-asylum, pro-rule-of-law platform cogently set forth by Beatriz Lopez on Substack and reposted here on Courtside. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/02/21/%f0%9f%91%82listen-up-biden-campaign-dems-a-dynamic-latina-leader-%f0%9f%a6%b8%f0%9f%8f%bd%e2%99%80%ef%b8%8f-has-the-formula-for-success-%e2%9c%8c%ef%b8%8fon-immigration-in-2024-sequence/.

It’s not quite too late for Biden to start fixing the asylum and resettlement system at the border and elsewhere so it works in a fair and timely manner for America and forced migrants. But, he can’t do it with the lame advice he’s getting from his advisors, his own moral relativism, and the failed leadership at DOJ and DHS. He needs to move the “bush leaguers” aside, bring in, and pay attention to, some “major league talent” before it IS too late. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/19/%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%A4%AF%F0%9F%91%A9%F0%9F%8F%BD%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%91%A8%F0%9F%8F%BB%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F-as-garlands-backlog-hits-3-million-way-past-time-to-clean/.

It’s painful to watch the errors pile up and the game slipping away from the Dems! 😣 Meanwhile, rather than being out there helping unify and re-elect Biden and Harris, advocates are marshaling their resources and considerable energy to fight tooth and nail in courts against the Administration’s apparent bone-headed intention to violate asylum law and human rights with illegal asylum bars! Energizing former core supporters to fight against your inane and immoral actions during an election year: A “strategy” that only inept, tone-deaf Dem politicos could love!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-24

☠️ THE REAL BORDER CRISIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BS 💩 BEING HURLED BY POLITICOS & THE MEDIA! — Todd Miller Reports From The Border For The Border Chronicle — “‘Border crisis’ rarely refers to people like the injured, sick, wet, and shivering asylum seekers at the border, who on Saturday included children and pregnant women.”

Asylum seekers walk along the border wall near Sasabe in 34-degree weather after snowfall on February 10. (Photo credit: David Damian Figueroa)

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/what-is-the-border-crisis-a-snowstorm?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

. . . .

During the week, the term “border crisis” was featured prominently in the national airwaves in both political rhetoric and media coverage. Perhaps the term would be appropriate and accurate if it referred to people freezing in the snow and rain, or dying crossing the desert in the summer. Yet, even though thousands have died crossing the world’s most dangerous land border—including record numbers in the past two years—this is almost never mentioned in media reports on the “border crisis.” Instead, the most prominent “crisis” is the right wing narrative of an overrun, open border. Everything else follows. The Border Patrol is overwhelmed. The enforcement apparatus is overwhelmed. Washington is overwhelmed. An NBC headline alarmingly suggested that ICE and CBP might have budget shortfalls, or entirely run out of money (spoiler: that’s not going to happen). “Border crisis” has been used so frequently that it has become both abstract and mind numbing, a term deployed either to gain political points or to justify more funding for border and immigration enforcement, which has received more than a hefty $400 billion since DHS opened its doors in 2003. “Border crisis” rarely refers to people like the injured, sick, wet, and shivering asylum seekers at the border, who on Saturday included children and pregnant women.

Perhaps instead of portraying the border as in crisis, we should say that the border, by its very design, creates crisis. I thought about this on Monday when I went down with a group of Green Valley Samaritan volunteers to where the asylum seekers had crossed. The snow was gone, but the mud puddles were not. The makeshift camp where many of the 400 people had stayed was empty. I kneeled by a tent made of aluminum blankets where a single kid’s sandal was on the ground. I meditated on that sandal and wondered how many times I’d seen this same scenario over the decades in Arizona—a kid’s Mickey Mouse suitcase, a stuffed animal, a small pair of pants or a shirt—in places where people had camped. How many times had I seen the electrolyte bottles, black bottles, empty tin cans in desolate places of the desert where people couldn’t possibly carry enough water to get where they were going?

A child’s sandal left behind at the makeshift camp along the border near Sasabe on February 12. (Photo credit: Todd Miller)

The border is designed to create crisis; that is the deterrence strategy. Right next to the camp were two idly parked Caterpillar excavators, presumably used to construct the border wall. Staring at them over the tents and makeshift shelters, I assumed that it was machinery from Spencer Construction—a company that received more than $600 million in contracts from CBP in the summer—for “border maintenance.” Now Spencer construction crews cruise up and down the border road, “filling in the gaps” of the border wall, as the Biden administration puts it. They filled in one such gap much closer to Sasabe several months ago, and now people crossed much farther away. With its focus on enforcement, the now-rejected border bill would have injected $14.4 billion into CBP and ICE (on top of a 2024 budget that was already more than $28 billion), including more funds for wall construction. Also included in the bill was money dedicated to surveillance technology, such as more autonomous towers (in addition to the nearly 400 such towers already installed), and the further digitization of the border, including systems for taking DNA samples from border crossers, and ground and maritime drone systems (yes, boat drones). Detention Watch Network describes the bill’s proposed expansion of ICE’s detention and deportation apparatus as the “largest appropriation of funds for immigration detention custody and surveillance operations in ICE’s history,” which included a daily capacity for detainment rising from 34,000 people to 50,000. Mind you, many of ICE’s detention facilities are run by private companies, so, as with surveillance, the profit motive is always lurking behind the scenes.

In short, the bill was what GOP lawmakers wanted, yet they rejected it. Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Kyrsten Sinema (or excuse me ex-Democrat, now independent) lamented that Republicans weren’t taking the border seriously—an accurate critique, since the bill was only offering more fortification, including an unprecedented provision that gave Washington the authority to shut down the border (though it was unclear what closing the border meant exactly). Even more confusing was that Donald Trump opposed ramping up enforcement. It all makes sense, however, when the election is considered: Trump wants to run against Biden on this issue, but he can hardly do that if Biden is pounding the iron fist. As ABC News reported, “Trump probably still does benefit politically from a protracted [and manufactured!] border crisis.” However, Senator Chris Murphy, who was the chief Democratic negotiator for the bill, wrote: “Republicans can’t claim that the border is in crisis and then vote against the bipartisan bill, written by their own leadership, that would fix the problem.” He concluded, “Quite simply, we risk losing the 2024 election if we do not seize this opportunity to go on offense on the issue of the border and turn the tables on Republicans on a key fall voting issue.” The Senate Democrats took Murphy’s challenge and went on the offensive with a slick video on Twitter showing Democrats as hardline border enforcers. For his part, Biden stated, “Every day between now and November the American people are going to know the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends.” In other words, the so-called border crisis has become a race to see which candidate can better fortify the border.

As for the people freezing and in various states of medical distress, this border cold war (and the proposed border bill) only makes matters worse. On top of that, according to a press release by No More Deaths on Saturday, Border Patrol agents told the humanitarian aid organization that they were “informed of the situation,” of people stranded in potentially life-threatening conditions, “but did not plan to drive out to address it.” Volunteers began to transport people from the border wall to the Border Patrol substation, also known as its processing center, so refugees could turn themselves in. Volunteers reported that Border Patrol agents in Sasabe detained and threatened them, and took pictures of their driver’s licenses. At one point there was a “rolling roadblock” of Border Patrol trucks. One volunteer reported a situation in which two agents spoke to them at “yelling volume” that seemed to be “backed with a bunch of anger.” The agents told the volunteers that they were “breaking the law” and threatened to arrest them and impound vehicles. But the volunteers persisted, driving the 15 miles or so back to retrieve more people. More and more asylum seekers assembled in front of the Border Patrol processing center. Eventually, the school in Sasabe was opened as a temporary shelter for the night. By the end of the day, the humanitarian aid organizations evacuated every person from the border. On Sunday morning all migrants were in Border Patrol custody. And as Arizona Public Media reported, “Seemingly at odds with the aid workers’ account, Customs and Border Protection says they prioritized the humanitarian response to the migrants abandoned in the cold.”

By the time I arrived on Monday, the real crisis had come and gone. There was the shoe, the blankets now drying on the mesquite trees, the construction workers driving up and down the road in their vehicles, and a 30-foot border wall meant to push people further into the desert. No More Deaths and Samaritans volunteers cleaned up the mess in the aftermath. What played out was not just a battle between humanitarian aid and the Border Patrol. It was a battle over what the crisis really was.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Sigh! 😮‍💨

So, our brave nation and our courageous leaders are “existentially threatened” by a bunch of desperate unarmed people patiently waiting in misery to turn themselves in to the Border Patrol for asylum screening because our Government can’t process them in a fair and timely manner through legal ports of entry as required by law! That’s despite the relative predictability of flows of forced migrants and their slow progress toward the border.

If our “intelligence” services can’t foresee very public flows of forced migrants northward, and our nation can’t prepare to fulfill our legal and moral obligations to our fellow humans, Lord help us!

$600 million for annual “border maintenance,” but not enough trained Asylum Officers to screen asylum seekers at ports of entry? $28 billion for ineffective “deterrence,” but they can’t run resettlement programs that get asylum seekers and those granted asylum to the many places in the U.S. that need their skills? Gimmie a break!

This is the human face 😢 of our shameful and preventable bipartisan failure to meet our legal, humanitarian, and moral obligations to forced migrants at the border and elsewhere! No wonder cowardly politicos and complicit media don’t have the guts to “look their victims in the eye!”👁️ 🐥

And, the failed bogus bipartisan Senate bill that the Administration and many Dems tout and the media fawn over, would have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve this real humanitarian crisis at the border. Indeed, as almost all real border experts agree, it would have made the suffering and dereliction of duty by our Government immeasurably worse for these our fellow humans in need!

Thanks to folks like Todd Miller and Melissa del Bosque for bearing witness, speaking truth, and refusing to let our nation’s grotesque abuses of, and intentional misrepresentations about, forced migrants be swept under the carpet.

Border Death — Cowardly U.S. politicos and the media don’t want to take responsibility for the foreseeable deadly consequences of their chronic border failures. They would rather see their victims dead and buried, preferably on the other side of the border where they will be “out of sight, out of mind!” This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-16-24

🎁 CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST “CHANNELS” LOPEZ & SCHMIDT — THE MIGRANT “SURGE” IS A GIFT TO AMERICA’S ECONOMY & TO DEMS: Will Latter Be Able To “Quit The Miller Lite” & Get Back “On Message?” — Tuesday’s Dem Victory In NY Could Be An Opportunity ONLY IF Dems Ignore The Mainstream Media & Showcase Sane, Humane, Solutions! — How About “Judges Without Borders?” — The Disgusting Immorality & Irresponsibility Of The Media!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/

Catherine writes in WashPost:

As the economy has improved and consumers have begun recognizing that improvement, Republicans have pivoted to attacking President Biden on a different policy weakness: immigration. After all, virtually everyone — Democrats included — seems to agree the issue is a serious problem.

But what if that premise is wrong? Voters and political strategists have treated our country’s ability to draw immigrants from around the world as a curse; it could be a blessing, if only we could get out of our own way.

Consider a few numbers: Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released updated 10-year economic and budget forecasts. The numbers look significantly better than they did a year earlier, and immigration is a key reason.

The CBO has now factored in a previously unexpected surge in immigration that began in 2022, which the agency assumes will persist for several years. These immigrants are more likely to work than their native-born counterparts, largely because immigrants skew younger. This infusion of working-age immigrants will more than offset the expected retirement of the aging, native-born population.

. . . .

Instead, GOP lawmakers scaremonger about the foreign-born, characterizing immigration as an invasion. As Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) dog-whistled last week, “Import the 3rd world. Become the 3rd world.”

Alas, the faction working to turn the United States into a developing country is not immigrants but Collins’s own party. It’s Republicans, after all, who have supported the degradation of the rule of law; the return of a would-be dictator; the gutting of public education and health-care systems; the rollback of clean-water standards and other environmental rules; and the relaxation of child labor laws (in lieu of letting immigrants fill open jobs, of course).

America has historically drawn hard-working immigrants from around the world precisely because its people and economy have more often been shielded from such “Third World”-like instability, which Republican politicians now invite in.

Ronald Reagan, the erstwhile leader of the conservative movement, often spoke poignantly of this phenomenon. In one of his last speeches as president, he described the riches that draw immigrants to our shores and how immigrants in turn redouble those riches:

Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.

— https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-presentation-ceremony-presidential-medal-freedom-5

Reagan’s words reflected the poetry of immigration. Since then, the prose — as we’ve seen in the economic numbers, among other metrics — has been pretty compelling, too.

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

Read Catherine’s full article at the link. Compare it with the observations that Beatriz Lopez and I recently made in Substack and Courtside about Dem short-sightedness on immigration, particularly in light of all the “good stories” about immigrants that Dems are afraid to tell out here. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/02/13/🤯dems-miller-lite-strategy-🤮-could-spell-disaster-☠%EF%B8%8F-in-november-time-to-regrow-spines-put-fight/.

Already the media are “at it again,” most attributing Democrat Tom Souzzi’s easy win over his GOP opponent for the House seat vacated by George Santos to his “move right” on immigration. But, as Catherine suggests above, “what if that premise is wrong?”

There is certainly support for a more nuanced view, both anecdotally and in polls. “Suozzi, [a voter] said, would ‘protect us but also be fair to those who are seeking asylum.’” https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/02/13/new-york-district-3-special-election-george-santos/. Sadly, and outrageously, the so-called Senate “compromise” border bill that Souzzi touted and which has become the “darling” of the tone-deaf mainstream media does neither. Not even close!

Yet, supposedly responsible journalists are falling all over themselves touting the benefits to Dems of a horrible “Miller-Lite” bill that essentially would have destroyed the right to asylum while turning the border over to cartels and smugglers to exploit some of the world’s most vulnerable who are victims of our own failings. Today’s wrong-headed WashPost editorial is a particularly egregious piece of such media sophistry. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/immigration-border-suozzi-mayorkas-special/.

We don’t have to “guess” at the human consequences of the nativist-inspired “bipartisan” non-solution at the border being trumpeted and glorified by Post editorialists safely ensconced in their “ivory tower!” We know! The results of recent half-baked attempts to close the border and eliminate asylum seekers are clear and well documented: death and human carnage inflicted on legal asylum seekers! See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjq1pmw_qWEAxUwL1kFHUbSDMIQFnoECBAQAw&url=https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/migrant-protection-protocols#:~:text=According%20to%20Human%20Rights%20First,individuals%20sent%20back%20under%20MPP.&usg=AOvVaw2ehZRBR_jXYoI41NZZN2DK&opi=8997844.

We also know that abuses of forced migrants at our borders fall disproportionately on the who are Black, Hispanic, or other people of color. See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/card-us-discrimination-against-black-migrants-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-at-the-border-and-beyond/ .

So, here’s a more intellectually honest “rewrite” of today’s lead editorial:

POST EDITORIAL BOARD: Death, Murder, Rape, Torture, Assault, Robbery, Extortion, Kidnapping of Hispanics, Blacks, Other Forced Migrants A Small Price To Pay For Bipartisan Deal To Outsource Migration To Gangs, Cartels, and Traffickers!

We Must Not Only “Turn Away The St. Louis,” But Torpedo It So Every Man, Woman, & Child Goes To The Bottom Where They Will Be Effectively Deterred From Ever Again Invoking Our Laws & Moral Obligations!

Nowhere, and I repeat nowhere, are the voices of those with decades of actual hands on experience working with migrants at the border, and the voices of those migrants themselves, being heard and heeded in this “non-debate” that resulted not in a “compromise” but in a “human rights giveaway.” What gives us the right to arrogantly and immorally give away rights and human lives that are NOT ours in the first place as if they were “table favors at a political fundraiser?“

As Beatriz so pointedly said:

Hanging above our heads like a Florida cockroach threatening to fly into our faces was the fact that the Biden administration, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Chris Murphy, and Democrats who voted for the bill had officially moved the goalpost on immigration.

Thanks to the moral vapidity of Dem politicos and the Administration the “game” for the lives, rights, future, and human dignity of asylum seekers is now being “played” between the “Good Guys’”goal line and their ten yard line! We are being offered a “choice” between “cruel and stupid” and “crueler and dumber!” Certainly, the Dems and our nation could and should do better!

Supporting fairness, orderly processing, and actions that protect asylum and the community would be a far more prudent choice for Dems than the virulent “death to asylum craze” (the unstated part of which is that it also means “death to asylum seekers”) that currently seems to be “in vogue” with both parties and mindlessly hyped by the media.

It’s quite possible that Souzzi won not because of his extreme position on asylum, but because his position was “less extreme” that that of his GOP opponent and her openly xenophobic party. This conclusion is actually supported by polls that show that while most voters understandably want “order at the border,” they also want to protect the right to claim asylum and a fair process for doing so. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-9hU.

There is opportunity here for Dems to change minds and create a stronger coalition for asylum seekers and other immigrants. NGO experts like Beatriz Lopez need to partner with Congressional Dems who understand asylum and the border (like Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)) to reach out and meet with Rep. Souzzi and others like him to explain practical solutions and useful changes at the border that would create order while maintaining and enhancing fair and timely asylum processing.

Among these is the low-budget, common sense proposal advanced by retired Wisconsin Judge Thomas Lister and me for “Judges Without Borders,” essentially “leveraging” voluntary service by trained, retired State and Federal Judges to work with groups informing and advising individuals before they make the dangerous journey to our Southern Border. Budget-friendly humane solutions that can reduce the pressure on the border should be a bipartisan winner. Read more about our proposal here! See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/13/%F0%9F%91%A9%F0%9F%8F%BD%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%91%A8%F0%9F%8F%BB%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F-%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%97%BDjudges-without-borders-an-innovative-op/

Beyond that, advocates must explain and model how migrants themselves can help resolve the problems facing Rep. Souzzi’s district and improve the quality of life for all. They must show how migrants are “part of the solution,” perhaps, for example, by establishing public-private partnerships that would involve migrant communities in constructing high-quality, attractive affordable housing that would help the entire community. Working on various civic improvement projects might also be a mutually beneficial option.

Advocates, NGOs, and political supporters of migrants must do more than just point to graphs and cite statistics about the long-term economic and societal benefits of immigration. They must actually model and create practical joint projects and expand opportunities for the benefit of migrants and the communities to which they have been relocated.

Problem-solving needs to be brought into the “here and now” rather than just being presented to U.S. communities as a vague promise of future benefits. My experience is that most people react to what’s before them today rather than than relying on a constructed view of tomorrow, now matter how attractive and statistically supported that future vision might be.

In addition to the misguided “Miller Lite nonsense” from the editorial board and, disappointingly, even the usually responsible and insightful Karen Tumulty, today’s WashPost contained useful observations from Eduardo Porter about the need to get migrants to places in the U.S. where they, their job skills, and their work ethic would be welcomed, appreciated, and useful.

But, both the Biden Administration and Congress have shamefully failed to convert this “low-hanging fruit” into reality. Even worse, that has allowed White Nationalist demagogues like Abbott and DeSantis to waste and divert millions in public funds to make the situation worse and to convert those who want to help America succeed and prosper into hapless “political footballs” being tossed back and forth between GOP nativists and wimpy Dem politicos who long-ago lost their moral bearings. Although NGOs and advocates are weary and overburdened, if they don’t take the initiative to make this happen, on at least some scale, the opportunity will be lost and the nativist myth-makers will prevail.

Only by modeling actual results in real time will we be able to demonstrate the fallacy and counterproductivity of the GOP’s nativist “burden myths.” There’s no time like the present to start!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-15-24

🤯DEMS’ “MILLER LITE STRATEGY” 🤮 COULD SPELL DISASTER ☠️ IN NOVEMBER: TIME TO “REGROW SPINES” & “PUT FIGHT 🥊 OVER FLIGHT” 🐥— Beatriz Perez @ Substack With A “Spot On” Blistering Analysis On Why Dems Must Change Course & Embrace Immigrants’ Value & Their Human Rights!🗽⚖️🇺🇸

Beatriz writes in Narrative Intervention on Substack:

https://open.substack.com/pub/beatrizlopez/p/democrats-chose-flight-over-fight?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

To no one’s surprise, this past week the bipartisan border bill, creatively named “The National Security Act, 2024” and introduced by an all white cast of Senators, failed to pass the chamber. Many Democratic Senators who once stood beside immigration advocates at rallies to push back against the proposal fell in line with their president and voted in favor of a flawed and dangerous bill that would fall short of mitigating migration. None but the beltway nerds and press were paying attention to C-SPAN as the proposal died, triggering Democratic political operatives to salivate over the “gotcha” vote that’ll be used against Republicans on the campaign trail.

Beatriz Lopez
Deputy Director
Immigration Hub
PHOTO: Immigration Hub

For many of us battle-tested, seasoned advocates, there was no true satisfaction at seeing Republicans implode or an undesirable proposal fall apart. Hanging above our heads like a Florida cockroach threatening to fly into our faces was the fact that the Biden administration, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Chris Murphy, and Democrats who voted for the bill had officially moved the goalpost on immigration.

‘Tis a slippery slope to empower the nation’s president to shut the border down to block asylum seekers and codify measures to make it nearly impossible to claim asylum and easier and faster to deport people back to dangerous conditions while hoping a developing nation with its own set of serious problems cracks down on vulnerable children and families seeking safety and refuge. To be okay with all of this means you’ve – as Isabel Wilkerson so aptly wrote – gone through a “process, a programming” to dehumanize both the issue and those at our doors, begging for shelter and freedom.

And look I get it. I’ve heard the rhetorical, exasperated questions: what else are Democrats supposed to do when migrants keep coming to the border? When Republicans keep hammering us on the border? And Chicago and New York are struggling to manage those bussed into the cities? And in a pivotal election year, these questions carry an extra ounce of GTFO.

And to them I say – I hear you. I’m listening. I’m worried, too. But I’m not concerned about the tenacity and brilliance of local leaders and NGOs on the ground working to help newly-arrived immigrants to settle in this powerful and abundant country. Or least of all anxious over visionary funders and creative mayors and governors seeking ways to welcome new settlers into regions eager for consumers and workers. I’m not even worried about Trump and Republicans relentlessly attacking Democrats on the campaign trail – it’s nothing new.

What I am truly troubled by is Democrats choosing flight over fight.

The current conundrum that President Biden and Democrats find themselves in goes beyond the challenges of global migration. Since 2017, Democratic messaging has been devoid of pro-immigrant messaging. Were it not because of the loud cries of a toddler separated from her mother and the incredible journalistic accounting that shook the soul of America did it spring even moderate Democrats into action. But, when it came to political advertising and a constant drumbeat of both values-based immigration messaging and Republican accountability on the issue, you had to search far and wide to find solid examples. Thanks to the David Shor’s of the political class, most Democrats chose to avoid the issue, leaving a vacuum gladly filled by Stephen Miller types.

The Democratic choice to neither proudly display their position on immigration or celebrate the immigration wins has left the American people believing they’re for “open borders” or wondering where they stand on the issue and have they done anything on it? What’s worse, they consistently fail to counter their opponent’s radical, Trumpian rhetoric and anti-immigrant ideas. While racist and radical media and online influencers, such as Tucker Carlson, yell anti-immigrant obscenities and the GOP spend millions upon millions trying to convince Americans that immigrants are bad people who are trying to replace them, infiltrate their communities with drugs and crime, and steal their jobs and social security, Democrats have responded by pivoting to other kitchen table issues.

The gradual damage of this messaging to America’s psyche and perception of the other – immigrants – has created the current moment. Now, even reporters from major news outlets are asking me why and how Trump dismantled our immigration system and what actions President Biden had taken to restore the system. The first question often leaves me baffled, for how quick we forget the heinous wrongs of the past, and the second is no surprise, just sad.

It’s really disappointing that not many people, reporters included, don’t know that the Biden administration has taken over 500 actions that have had such a positive impact on women, families, children and workers in the U.S.

No Democrat should be afraid of their immigration shadow. It’s time to stop running away or running to the right of the issue. You can be sensible without spite. Until Republicans can treat the cancer that is Trump, Democrats have to go to bat for the issue with gutsy resolve, bold solutions and radical empathy. They have to be in it for the short and long game. Like investing in an index fund or supporting reproductive rights or gay marriage, it’ll pay off to tell Americans and Republicans that Democrats stand for an immigration system that lives up to our values and meets our nation’s economic demands, that we’ll secure our border with smart and humane solutions – not band-aids that create chaos and jeopardize lives – that we’ll do whatever it takes to deliver a path to citizenship for Dreamers and hard-working immigrants who have waited too long for our government to act, and that we’ll fight like hell against Trump and anyone who threatens to separate families, deport our neighbors en masse, and divide our communities.

No one is immune to mistakes or bad votes. For Democrats, this is a moment to reflect and admit you fucked up. Now do better. Yes, use the vote to hold Trump and Republicans accountable – but don’t you dare use that bill as a model for legislation or campaign rhetoric.

You can’t out-Trump Trump.

Humanize the issue. Show courage and compassion. Talk solutions. Remind voters what and who you stand for and what’s at stake if Trump and anti-immigrant Republicans have it their way. Be disciplined and keep repeating. Throw some money behind that messaging. And I promise you, you’ll win.

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

Thanks, Beatriz!

This should be required reading for every Dem politico!

Case in point: A very recent Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) study reaffirmed what those who work with migrants have always known: Directly contrary to the GOP and media myths, migrants of all types — regardless of status — are a huge source of economic growth for America. They will help fuel a $7 trillion boost in the U.S. economy over the next decade! See, e.g., https://time.com/6692645/immigration-economy-us-gdp-growth-cbo-report/.

But, you sure wouldn’t know this from the one-sided “debate” about migration going on today. The GOP spreads (and the media promotes, largely without critical analysis) blatant lies and myths about the largely fabricated and often self-created “burdens” of migration (see, Abbott, DeSantis). Yet rather than rebutting them and embracing truth, Dems basically look the other way and try to change the conversation.

This has caused them to “run away from” and “downplay” one of the Biden Administration’s most important positive achievements — functioning parole programs that move migrant flows from the “irregular” to the “regular!” Moreover, that processing takes place in advance, outside the United States, rather than adding to the border pressure or becoming part of the overhyped asylum backlog resulting from poor performance by Administrations of both parties and Congress over decades (but hugely aggravated by the Trump kakistocracy). Even the immediate work authorization problem is solved by the advance parole programs.

Are these programs perfect? No, they are far too limited both in terms of numbers and scope of eligible nationalities. They also don’t answer questions about the long-term fate of those paroled. But, they are certainly a step in the right direction that could be built upon and “model” the case for more durable long-term legislative expansions of visa programs.

The GOP’s irrational attacks on what is working and helps our country and the world shows just how little they care about solving problems or the long-term prosperity, stability, and strength of our nation. Yet, the largely indisputable benefits of parole and the willingness of the Administration to engage in creative and successful problem-solving gets scant mention from either the Biden campaign or Congressional Dems.

And, the media is no better. Given the current high-profile of immigration on the national scene, one might reasonably have expected “front page coverage” of the CBO report and findings, particularly since it directly contradicts many of the false claims raised by both parties during the recent failed “Senate compromise” proposal. Instead, even I had to do some “digging” to come up with articles featuring the CBO report.

Curiously, the GOP plays to the most extreme, dangerous, and unreasonable elements of its far right base.

Conversely, Dems run against the values and views of some of the most reasonable, dedicated, and energizing elements of their progressive base.

Not smart!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-13-24

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Better judges for a better America! 👩🏾‍⚖️⚖️😎🗽🇺🇸

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Two More Classic Examples of AG’s “Judicial Malpractice” With Lives At Stake From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

1. CA9 on Persecution: Singh v. Garland

2. BIA Ignores Evidence, CA2 Remands

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Beatriz writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 (2-1) on Credibility, Evidence: Kalulu v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Craig on Linkedin:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Todd writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Elliot Spagat reports for AP:

Here’s the Executive Summary:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Karen writes in the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Jaswinder Bolina writes in WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Catherine writes in WashPost:

POST EDITORIAL BOARD: Death, Murder, Rape, Torture, Assault, Robbery, Extortion, Kidnapping of Hispanics, Blacks, Other Forced Migrants A Small Price To Pay For Bipartisan Deal To Outsource Migration To Gangs, Cartels, and Traffickers!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: