Huffington Post – Page 14 – immigrationcourtside.com

HuffPost: GOP Senators Seek To Halve Legal Immigration — Mount Attack On American Families, Refugees, Africans, Asian Americans, Latinos!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cotton-perdue-legal-immigration-bill_us_589a4f4ee4b04061313a3090?425ff5si0vd9uow29

Elise Foley and Dana Liebelson write in HuffPost:

“WASHINGTON ― For decades, a central tenet of U.S. immigration policy has been that American citizens should be able to reunite with their siblings, parents and grown children who live abroad. The government doesn’t make this easy. But now, emboldened by President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant stance, two Republican senators want to make it almost impossible.

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would bar immigrants from bringing almost anyone but their spouses and minor children to the U.S. Latino and Asian Americans, who are more likely to be recent immigrants with family living abroad, would be disproportionately affected by this change.

The bill would also eliminate diversity visas, which many recent African immigrants rely on to get to the U.S., and cap refugee resettlement at 50,000 people per year. The bill doesn’t affect the millions of Irish, German and Italian Americans whose families came to the U.S. in earlier waves of immigration and no longer have close relatives abroad.

The senators predict the bill would cut legal immigration per year by half. They also think it stands a chance of passing.

“Once you get here, you have a green card and you can open up immigration not just to your immediate family, but your extended family, your village, your clan, your tribe,” Cotton said of ending the diversity lottery. “I don’t think it works for American workers.”

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

The new GOP “family values?” Would we even be having this discussion if most recent immigrants were “white guys” from Canada, Australia, and the UK? My guess is no. It’s not about protecting American workers. The GOP doesn’t give a hoot about them. That’s why they are anti-union, anti-minimum wage, anti-universal health care, anti-safety net, anti-Medicare, anti-consumer protection, anti-financial regulation, anti-pension, anti-equal pay for equal work, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-public workers, anti-education and anti just about everything that doesn’t directly or indirectly help their fat cat friends get fatter and their business buddies get bigger — more profits, more money for upper management, more tax breaks for the rich, less money, fewer benefits, and no chance at a comfortable retirement for workers. No, something else is at work here.

PWS

02/07/17

My Wife Was Right (As Usual) — Sean Spicer CAN Take A Joke — And That’s A Good Thing — Does The Ghost Of Janet Reno Live In The White House Press Room?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-responds-to-melissa-mccarthys-snl-sketch_us_58988795e4b0c1284f26d5ed

From HuffPost:

“The [SNL spoof] performance apparently left such an impression that Spicer himself commented on it.

While at the Super Bowl on Sunday, Spicer talked to “Extra” and told them he received an onslaught of text messages after the sketch aired. He told the publication that though he thought that McCarthy “could dial back” a bit, he found the show to be really “funny.”

Spicer elaborated by saying McCarthy “needs to slow down on the gum chewing; way too many pieces in there.” Overall, Spicer’s response is a vast departure from how the rest of the administration ― namely Trump ― has been reacting to political sketches on “SNL.”

It seems the notorious gum-chewer can take a joke.”

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

After watching this skit, my wife Cathy said to me “I’ll bet even Sean Spicer will laugh at that one.” Of course she was right!

“Alternate facts” or not, Spicer recognizes sizes one essential truth — only very significant people get parodied on SNL. Good for him!

For those who haven’t seen the SNL clip, go to the HuffPost link above and follow the other links to the complete skit, starring Melissa McCarthy as SS. The late Janet Reno’s unfailingly positive and good humored reaction to SNL’s “Janet Reno’s Dance Party” routine was one of the things I’ll remember most about her as not only a good Attorney General but a very genuine human being.

Can’t survive in Washington, particularly if you’re working in the filed of immigration, without a sense of humor. I wish President Trump would figure that one out and “get with the program.”

PWS

02/06/17

N. Rappaport In HuffPost: Visa Restrictions Under President Trump’s EO Might Expand!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5894ed61e4b061551b3dfe64?timestamp=1486251772708

Nolan writes in HuffPost:

“Too much attention is being paid to a 90-day travel ban in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Order). While it is a serious matter, the temporary suspension of admitting aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen into the United States is just the tip of the iceberg. Other provisions in the Order may cause much more serious consequences.

Section 3(a) of the Order directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of State (DOS) and the Director of National Intelligence, to determine what information is needed “from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” This applies to all countries, not just the seven that are subject to the 90-day suspension.

Those officials have 30 days from the date of the Order to report their “determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information (emphasis supplied).”

Section 3(d) directs the Secretary of State to “request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.” Section 3(e) explains the consequences of failing to comply with this request. Note that this also applies to all countries, not just the seven that are subject to the 90-day delay.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, …) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs (emphasis supplied).
This is far more serious than the 90-day ban on immigration from the seven designated countries. With some exceptions, President Trump is going to stop immigration from every country in the world that refuses to provide the requested information. And this ban will continue until compliance occurs.”

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

If this happens, there are likely to be more challenges, and more work for lawyers. Could President Trump turn out to be the best thing that has happened to the U.S. legal profession lately? Stay tuned.

PWS

02/05/17

HuffPost: 100,000 Visas Revoked Under Trump Order!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-ban-revoked-visas_us_5894b9b9e4b09bd304bb126f?lfqs7aziux8suzyqfr&

Elise Foley Reports on HuffPost:

“WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration provisionally revoked 100,000 visas as part of its ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, a government lawyer said in court on Friday.

The revelation caused shockwaves on Twitter, but the State Department actually confirmed earlier this week that it had provisionally revoked most visas held by people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

State Department officials said later Friday that fewer than 60,000 individuals’ visas were provisionally revoked as a result of the order. “To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and non-immigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs told The Huffington Post.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the discrepancy in numbers.”

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

As I’ve noted before, to date lawyers have been the only real beneficiaries of the Trump immigration orders.

PWS

01/03/17

HuffPost: N. Rappaport Contests ACLU Exec. Director Romero’s Claim That Trump EO Is “A Muslim Ban Wrapped In A Paper-Thin National Security Rationale.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58922d69e4b0f009905272bc?timestamp=1485983968492

“The ACLU Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, claims that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order suspending the admission of aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 90 days is “a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national security rationale.”

. . . .

President Trump’s Executive Order directs the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence to determine what information is needed from any country to decide whether one of its nationals who is seeking admission to the United States is who he claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

The Executive Order also requires finding out which countries will be willing to provide the needed information. If the governments of the seven designated countries agree to provide this information, the ban will not be extended, but their nationals will have to pass through the new screening process to get a visa to come to the United States.

In the meantime, the Executive Order permits the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to waive this ban on a case-by-case basis when a waiver is in the national interest.

DHS already has applied this waiver to the entry of nationals from those countries who are lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad. He has stated that, “absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”

It certainly would have been better if President [Trump] had provided more guidance on such waivers and set up procedures for requesting them before issuing the Executive Order. He also could have delayed its effective date to prevent people from being caught by it in transit to the United States.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that it is not “a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national security rationale.”

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

Read Nolan’s full article which develops his legal arguments further at the above link.

PWS

02/01/17

BREAKING: President Trump Nominates 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch To Supremes — Read My Short Article “Judge Gorsuch Understands — Why It’s High Time For Chevron ‘Judicial Task Avoidance’ To Go”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court_us_5890c0e8e4b0522c7d3d592a?ua16n5hws8p6xswcdi&

HuffPost writes:

“Against that backdrop, questions about the court’s independence and role as a check on the executive branch are sure to dominate Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, which will find Democrats on the offensive and under increasing pressure to block or deny the nomination outright ― much like Republicans obstructed the nomination of Merrick Garland, the highly respected appeals court judge President Barack Obama chose to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.

If confirmed, Gorsuch, 49, would bring to the bench a conservative record that will be forever measured against that of Scalia, a towering firebrand of legal conservatism whose death last year forced Trump to issue not one but two lists of potential nominees he’d choose if elected. The lists ― largely assembled with the help of conservative brain trusts ― helped assuage supporters’ fears that Trump might not nominate judges who are conservative enough.

Conservatives need not worry. Gorsuch is an intellectual rising star ― a well-spoken and eloquent writer who enraptures Republican and Libertarian lawyers and law students who come to see him at conferences organized by the Federalist Society, a group that helped Trump put together his Supreme Court wish list.

. . . .

“One key concurring [sic] opinion that earned Gorsuch high praise from conservative commentators was in an immigration case decided last year in which Gorsuch staked out a strong position against the administrative state ― and the way the Supreme Court has made it easier for agencies to interpret laws that judges are better suited to interpret.

“That’s a problem for the judiciary,” Gorsuch wrote in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch. “And it is a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired not by an independent decisionmaker seeking to declare the law’s meaning as fairly as possible — the decisionmaker promised to them by law — but by an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.”

Administrative law isn’t exactly an area activists will rally around, but the high court hears a number of cases in which agencies are front and center ― whether the controversy is about transgender rights, health care, the environment or immigration. In that regard, Gorsuch could be skeptical of how the Trump administration ― and future administrations ― reads the law as it exists on the books.” [emphasis added]

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

Judge Gorsuch Understands — Why It’s High Time For Chevron “Judicial Task Avoidance” To Go

by Paul Wickham Schmidt

I haven’t studied Judge Gorsuch’s opinions enough to make any definitive judgement. But, I really enjoyed his opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016). He “gets it” about the current problems of “deferring to administrative courts like the BIA and the U.S. Immigration Court which are subject to interference and pressure from the Executive, which “owns” them, to implement certain pro-government policies at the expense of fairness and due process for the individual.

Contrary to the HuffPost report above, Judge Gorsuch wrote the unanimous opinion of the court, not a “concurring” opinion. In it, he exposed the illogic of the Supreme Court’s so-called “Chevron doctrine.”

Chevron is a masterful piece of of Article III “judicial task avoidance” by the Supreme Court. It requires Federal Courts to “defer” to “captive” Executive Branch administrative judges, like the BIA, on important questions of law. It also allows life-tenured Article III judges to avoid deciding difficult or potentially controversial issues.

In other words, as recognized by Judge Gorsuch, Chevron provides “cover” for Article III judges to avoid their sole constitutional responsibility of independently resolving legal questions. Judge Gorsuch and his colleagues found that Chevron did not apply in the particular circumstance before them. The BIA had ignored both common sense and due process in trying to reach a result favorable to the Government. The 10th Circuit reversed the BIA (for the third time in the same case).

Whatever the merits or demerits of the rest of his jurisprudence, I am encouraged that Judge Gorsuch recognizes the critical role of an independent Article III judiciary. He is also “on to” the problems of over-relying on administrative judges, like the BIA and U.S. Immigration Judges, who work for the Executive and therefore can be subject to Executive rules and pressures that can, and sometimes do, unfairly skew results against individuals seeking justice in administrative courts.

Consequently, Judge Gorsuch should resist attempts by the Trump Administration to short-cut due process in the Immigration Courts and, hopefully, will encourage his colleagues to look closely to insure that individuals are being treated fairly in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If at some point Chevron and it’s even more pernicious progeny known as “Brand X” — which incredibly encourages administrative courts to “overrule” Article III courts on questions of law — go down the drain, the country and the cause of justice will be well-served. And, Article III judges will be required to once again fully earn the salaries to which their life-tenure entitles them.

Read Judge Gorsuch’s full opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch below.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9585.pd

PWS

01/31/17

Sanctuary Wars: The Republic, And Its Cities, Strike Back!

Immigration beat reporter Beth Fertig of WNYC/NPR reports:

“There is no single definition of a sanctuary city, and policies vary tremendously across the country. But in New York City, immigration agents are not allowed in the jails. When immigrants without legal status are arrested, they can only be detained or turned over to federal agents for deportation if there’s a warrant and they’ve been convicted of a violent crime. A 2014 local law spells out nearly 170 different offenses that meet that definition. They include various forms of assault, arson and sex crimes.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito said these limits make sense.

“If you’re committing a nonviolent offense but you’re otherwise contributing positively to the city, why should you be torn apart from your family?”

Police Commissioner James O’Neill and Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the argument Wednesday, saying that immigrants will be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they’re afraid of deportation. “We build trust,” said O’Neill. “I wouldn’t want to do anything to put that at risk.”

Trump’s order changes enforcement priorities, too. In addition to aliens convicted of criminal offenses, the Department of Homeland security will also prioritize those who have been “charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved.”

Avideh Moussavian, a policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, warned that this policy could lead to “gross infractions of due process protections.”

She said people could become enforcement priorities if “they have been merely charged with an offense, even if their charge is pending and turns out later to be dismissed.”

From a practical standpoint, it would be very difficult to deport more immigrants. The nation’s immigration courts have a tremendous backlog of cases. Judges who handle immigration cases estimate there are 75 vacancies among their ranks, and Trump has imposed a federal hiring freeze. However, the executive order means that the freeze on judges could be lifted in the name of national security.”

Read Beth’s complete article, including comments from Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute in favor of the President’s crackdown at:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/why-sanctuary-city-dispute-about-safety/

Mollie Reilly, Deputy Politics Editor, and her colleagues write on HuffPost:

“Independent of the ultimate legality of the executive order, politicians from those sanctuary cities say they aren’t budging, and legal advocacy groups are gearing up for the coming legal fight.
The president is “in for one hell of a fight,” California state Sen. Scott Weiner (D), who represents San Francisco, said in a statement.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said his city “will not retreat one inch” from its policy against holding undocumented immigrants it otherwise would not hold based on requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said his city “will not be intimidated by the authoritarian message coming from this administration.” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) said “nothing has changed” in his city, noting the lack of specifics in Trump’s order.
“We are going to fight this, and cities and states around the country are going to fight this,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said at a press conference Wednesday.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) already began hinting at a legal challenge, releasing a statement that Trump lacks the constitutional authority for his executive order and that he will do “everything in [his] power” to push back if the president does not rescind it.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) also warned of potential legal challenges to come, saying in a statement that the order “raises significant legal issues that my office will be investigating closely to protect the constitutional and human rights of the people of our state.”
There’s no exact definition of “sanctuary city.” Places like San Francisco and New York use the term broadly to refer to their immigrant-friendly policies, but more generally the term is applied to cities and counties that do not reflexively honor all of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for cooperation. Many of these localities do work with ICE to detain and hand over immigrants suspected or convicted of serious crimes, but they often release low-priority immigrants requested by ICE if they have no other reason to hold them.
“The reason that many local law enforcement officers don’t honor detainers is because courts have said that they violate the Constitution, and if they violate the Constitution, the localities are on the hook financially,” said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, a law professor at the University of Denver who teaches on the intersection of criminal law and immigration.
Just on Tuesday, a federal court in Rhode Island joined several others that have ruled in recent years that certain ICE detainers can violate people’s constitutional rights ― even those of U.S. citizens.
But Trump’s executive order seems to overlook this legal reality, and instead frames sanctuary cities with the alarmist rhetoric he used on the campaign trail.”

Read Mollie & co.’s complete report here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-sanctuary-cities_us_

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

PWS

01/26/17

More On Trump’s Refugee, Muslim Restrictions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban-refugees_us_58877244e4b096b4a2349927?ioficaiiz1xn06yldi&

The Huffington Post writes:

“Although it reflects anti-refugee sentiment spreading worldwide, the draft of Trump’s order represents a dramatic upending of current U.S. policy toward some of the globe’s most unstable regions. It will inevitably face opposition from human rights groups, civil liberties organizations, Democrats and even members of the Christian right, who have encouraged a sympathetic approach to the refugee crisis.

The civil war in Syria, now in it’s sixth year, has left 4.8 million Syrians as refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Since the war began in 2011, the U.S. has admitted only about 18,000 refugees from Syria, due in part to a lengthy vetting process that typically takes from 18 to 24 months. But as the humanitarian crisis in Syria worsened, former President Barack Obama pushed for an increase in admissions. During the last fiscal year, the U.S. accepted over 10,000 Syrian refugees.

Despite the low number of admissions and the intensive, multi-agency screening process, resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. has become a controversial issue. In response to Obama’s push to welcome more people from the country, more than half of U.S. governors ― all but one of them Republicans ― attempted to block Syrian refugees from resettling in their states.

Throughout the presidential race, Trump seized on the growing national opposition to refugee resettlement. He first proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S. in December 2015, following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Though his specifics varied over the year that followed, Trump continued to promise to heavily restrict immigration from countries with Muslim-majority populations.

The draft executive order gives religious minorities priority in refugee admissions ― which may mean that Christians in most countries in the Middle East will be favored over Muslims.

The executive order is expected to include a list of acts that would disqualify an individual from entering the U.S., two sources briefed on the language said. People who commit honor killings, bigotry, violence against women, or who persecute against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, would not be admitted, they said. The U.S. already denies admission to persecutors, criminals and human rights abusers.

At least one refugee resettlement organization has already been briefed on an expected decline of refugee admissions to 50,000. That number is significantly lower than ceilings proposed before the Syrian civil war began.

Former intelligence analysts have pointed out that a policy that specifically discriminates against Muslims perpetuates the narrative that the U.S. is at war with Islam, which serves as a powerful recruiting tool for jihadist groups like the so-called Islamic State and al Qaeda.”

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

I’m glad I’m not a refugee. And, most refugees wish they weren’t refugees.

PWS

01/24/17

Sessions Gives Few Specifics About Immigration Role During First Day of Hearings — Offers Neither Support Nor Solution For Dreamers, But Doesn’t Consider Them Removal Priorities — Defends Hard Line Positions, But Says He Would Like To Work Together On Solving Difficult Problem In Compassionate Manner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-dick-durbin-immigration_us_58751aa5e4b02b5f858b5c4a

“The attorney general is not in charge of most deportation efforts ― that falls to the Department of Homeland Security. But should he be confirmed, Sessions would still have plenty of power to affect immigration matters, from shaping the resources immigration courts receive and how they make decisions to pressuring local law enforcement to assist in deportation efforts.

Sessions said that Durbin was “wrong” about what his record indicates he’d do as attorney general, but he also defended his support of limiting immigration and increasing deportations.

“I believe the American people spoke clearly in this election,” Sessions said. “I believe they agreed with my basic view and I think it’s a good view, a decent view, a solid legal view for the United States of America that we create a lawful system of immigration that allows people to apply to this country and if they’re accepted, they get in; if they’re not accepted, they don’t get in.”

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

Senator Sessions seemed neither sympathetic to, nor understanding of, the difficult situation of “Dreamers.” On the plus side, he seemed to recognize that the Dreamers, and similarly situated individuals who have successfully integrated into the community of the United States, probably aren’t going anywhere, but offered no specific suggestions as to how they should be treated if DACA is withdrawn.

I was somewhat encouraged by the Senator’s recognition of the complexity of the immigration issue — something many enforcement-oriented individuals refuse to acknowledge — the need to work together to solve problems, ideally through legislation, and his use of the term “compassionate.” He also seems to appreciate that being the Attorney General of the United States is a markedly different role than representing Alabama in the Senate — it’s a bigger picture with a much border, more diverse constituency.

As far as I can tell from reading press accounts, Senator Sessions was neither asked about nor did he reveal his plans for what is probably going to be his biggest problem when he assumes the leadership of the Department of Justice — the total meltdown of the U.S. Immigration Court System.

PWS

01-11-17

House GOP Pushes To Punish Sanctuary Cities — DC Establishes Legal Defense Fund To Aid Migrants

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-sanctuary-cities-funds_us_58730858e4b02b5f85898d46

“House Republicans are moving swiftly to punish so-called sanctuary cities, and have already introduced at least three measures to block federal funds for municipalities or college campuses that limit their cooperation with federal officials on deporting undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) introduced HR 83, known as the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, last week to strip federal funding from such jurisdictions. As mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Barletta gained a national profile for approving ordinances aimed at driving out undocumented immigrants, most of which were found unconstitutional.

“Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents,” he told Hazleton’s Standard-Speaker. “One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility.”

Supporters of sanctuary cities argue, however, that they improve public safety by making undocumented people more willing to come forward if they witness or are victims of a crime, and sbay it can be costly or even illegal to hold arrestees longer based on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that DC will,be setting up a Legal Defense Fund for migrants residing in the District:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-will-go-beyond-sanctuary-create-legal-defense-fund-for-illegal-immigrants/2017/01/09/0d6c7adc-d68e-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html

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

In a previous post, Nolan Rapport suggested that setting up a Legal Defense Fund not only helps the system function but also represents a “smarter approach” to helping migrants than a policy of non-cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement. Here’s a link to Nolan’s post:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-4W

PWS

01/09/17

David Leopold Warns About Possible Five-Point Attack On Immigrants By Attorney General Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-chilling-ways-senator-jeff-sessions-could-attack-immigrants-as-attorney-general_us_5870022ce4b099cdb0fd2ef7

“As the nation’s top lawyer, head of the immigration court, and civil rights officer, Jeff Sessions would have access to multiple tools to harm immigrants and undermine due process. Given his rhetoric and record as a United States Senator, as well as his association with anti-immigrant extremists, there is every reason to believe he would use all of them.

Here are five ways Sessions could attempt to undermine immigrants and immigration policy if confirmed as Attorney General:

Impose his radical, anti-immigrant ideology on decisions by the federal immigration courts;

Expand the number of immigrants who are deported even though they qualify for a green card or asylum;

Reduce access to legal counsel and information about immigrants’ legal rights;

Criminalize immigrants by bringing trumped up charges against ordinary workers; and

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

Of course, any attempt Sessions would make to undermine civil and due process rights will be met by strong litigation from the outside. But the U.S. Senate should block his confirmation from the start, as Senator Sessions is highly unqualified for this position and has showed a profound disregard for civil and human rights.”

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

Sorry, David, but Jeff Sessions has the votes to be confirmed as the next Attorney General. Those who don’t like that can rant, but that’s not going to change the reality that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and the Republicans firmly control both Houses of Congress.

When you lose elections at the national and state levels, like the Democrats did, you end up with next to no leverage on appointments or policies unless you can reach across the aisle and strike a chord with at least some Republicans. Right now, it appears that all Republican Senators, and probably a few Democrats, ewill vote for Senator Sessions’s confirmation. Whatever his pros and cons, Senator Sessions appears to have had the wisdom to be polite and cordial to his colleagues and to occasionally reach across the aisle on issues of common interest. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to count for a lot when current or former Senators come up for confirmation to Executive Branch positions.

So barring a “bombshell” next week, and I must say his record has been “flyspecked” — regardless of what he put in the Judiciary Committee questionnaire — that’s unlikely. For better or worse, Senator Session’s views on a wide variety of subjects and his conduct as a public servant over many decades are a matter of public record. Nothing in that record seems to have given pause to any of his Republican Senate colleagues.

That being said, it woulds be nice to think that upon hearing some of the criticisms, Jeff Sessions will reflect on the huge differences between being a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and the wider responsibilities of being the chief law enforcement official, legal adviser, and litigator representing all of the People of the United States, not just the Trump Administration.

David is, of course, correct to focus on Attorney General Session’s vast authority over immigration. He will control a huge and critically important U.S. Immigration Court System currently sporting a backlog of more than one-half million cases and suffering from chronically inadequate judicial administration and lack of basic technology like e-filing. While there certainly is an interrelationship among civil rights, human rights, and due process in the Immigration Courts, there is every reason to believe that Attorney General Session’s biggest impact will be in the field of immigration.

If things go as David predicts, then the battle over fundamental fairness and due process in immigration policy and the Immigration Courts is likely to be fought out in the Article III Federal Courts, which, unlike the Immigration Courts, aren’t under Executive control. That will have some drawbacks for everyone, but particularly for the Trump Administration.

And, if Sessions is wise, he’ll look back at what happened when the Bush Administration tried to promote a “rubber stamp” approach to justice and due process in the Immigration Courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals were outraged at the patent lack of due process and fundamental fairness as “not quite ready for prime time” cases were “streamlined” and thrown into the Courts of Appeals for review with glaring factual errors and remarkable legal defects. Not totally incidentally, this also dramatically increased their workload, with judicial review of immigration matters occupying a majority of the docket in several prominent circuits.

As a result, cases were returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who then returned them to the Immigration Courts for “re-dos,” in droves. The Courts of Appeals lost faith in the Executive’s ability to run a fundamentally fair, high quality Immigration Court System, and basically placed the Immigration Courts into “judicial receivership” until things stabilized at least somewhat. The waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars caused by this “haste makes waste” approach was beyond contemplation and, for a time, threatened to paralyze the entire American justice system.

Additionally, it would be a huge mistake for the Trump Administration to view the Bush Administration’s Immigration Court debacle as the product of “bleeding heart liberal appellate judges” appointed by President Bill Clinton. The criticism from Article III Judges cut across political lines. Two of the most outspoken judicial critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the U.S. Immigration Courts were Republican appointees: then Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Second Circuit and Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Indeed, Judge Walker is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.

Obviously, those who favor greater immigration enforcement won the election and are going to have a chance to try out their policies. But, “enhanced enforcement” is likely to be effective only if we have a fair, impartial, and totally due process oriented Immigration Court System.

In other words, the Immigration Courts must be a “level playing field” with judges who, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, play the role of “impartial umpires” between those seeking to stay in our country and those seeking to remove them. Results from such a due-process oriented system would be more likely to inspire confidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, thereby increasing the stature of the Immigration Courts and their ability to achieve final resolutions at the initial, and most cost-efficient, level of our justice system. Due process and fairness in the Immigration Court System should be a nonpartisan common interest no matter where one stands on other aspects of the “immigration debate.”

We are about to find out what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in mind for the U.S. Immigration Courts and the rest of the U.S. justice system. I’m hoping for the best, but preparing to assert the essential constitutional requirement for due process in the Immigration Courts if, as David predicts, it comes under attack.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: