🤯 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

🇺🇸🗽 GOP LIES, DEM RETICENCE, OBSCURE A BIDEN IMMIGRATION SUCCESS STORY — Parole Program Works, Models Need & Opportunity For More Legal Immigration Pathways!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-parole-republicans_n_66058245e4b090bf41ba958e

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

While most of the debate over immigration focuses on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of President Joe Biden’s most effective policies so far has occurred elsewhere ― at airports.

For a little over a year, Biden has used what’s called “parole” authority to collectively allow up to 30,000 vetted Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans per month into the country, mostly via air travel, for a temporary two-year window.

The program is based on the authority held by the federal government under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to grant temporary admission to foreigners on a “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” And, the Biden administration touts, it has been accompanied by drops in the number of nationals from each of these countries who’ve crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on foot.

But to hear some right-wingers talk about it, the “CHNV parole” program — the name an acronym for the nationalities it encompasses — is a secret, treasonous endeavor that utilizes government-funded charter flights to transport “illegal” migrants into the United States. None of that is true, but that doesn’t seem to be the point.

“I don’t know of anyone in Congress who knew this!” exclaimed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on a podcast episode, just 14 months after Biden himself announced the CHNV parole program during a public press briefing and despite regular publications of data on the program by the Department of Homeland Security.

The false accusations of secret taxpayer-funded charter flights ferrying unvetted migrants to new lives in the United States plays into Republican attempts to cast immigration issues as a major crisis — and one on which Democrats are failing — ahead of the 2024 election.

. . . .

The precedent to the CHNV parole program was introduced in October 2022, when the Department of Homeland Security created a parole program for Venezuelans that was modeled on the Ukrainian program, requiring applicants to have a U.S.-based sponsor who’s financially able to support them and to pass vetting and background checks. In January 2023, the White House announced the program would expand to include Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua.

Individuals from those four counties who meet the requirements and haven’t attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry are allowed to fly from their home countries into the United States rather than appearing in person at land border crossings.

Since January 2023, more than “386,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole under the parole processes,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection wrote in a February 2024 update.

“There’s no doubt that the CHNV program is by far the largest-scale parole program that any administration has done in decades,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, a research and legal advocacy organization.

And data supports the administration’s claim that the parole program, as part of a larger package, has helped discourage “irregular” migration.

As the Cato Institute reported in September, illegal entries by Venezuelans fell 66% from September 2022 to July 2023 and from December 2022 to July 2023, illegal entries fell 77% for Haitians, 98% for Cubans and 99% for Nicaraguans. Compared with peaks in CHNV numbers in 2021 and 2022, the report added, July 2023 arrests for those four nationalities were down 90%.

“There has not been a single month where unlawful entries of the four countries combined has been above the level it was in December 2022,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

The White House announced the policy as part of a package explicitly meant to “increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry.” The Biden administration grouped the program with others meant to encourage “legal pathways” into the United States ― such as increased refugee admissions and asylum opportunities in other countries ― and alongside harsher border enforcement for migrants who broke the rules.

Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, told HuffPost in a statement that the CHNV parole process was part of a strategy to “combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and [has] kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly.”

And yet many on the right have misrepresented ― or simply lied about ― what the parole program is, playing on anxieties about race and national identity to paint it as part of a supposed scheme by Democrats to overwhelm the country with new residents or somehow displace American citizens.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Beyond the barrage of racially-driven GOP lies, Dems have failed to capitalize on the success of Biden’s efforts and its benefits to the U.S. economy. Significantly, rather than just “moaning and groaning” about the so-called “immigration problem,” the Biden Administration actually took innovative action to address the situation.

The GOP claim that the program is “secret” is a blatant lie! Yet, you would be hard pressed to find any recent examples of Biden, Harris, their campaign officials, or Dem politicos touting the success of the parole program or the critical role of immigration of all types in the continuing strong performance of the U.S. economy.

You would would be much more likely to come across disingenuous statements blaming the GOP for not giving Biden “authority” to close the border, violate human rights, inflict more needless cruelty, and otherwise dehumanize asylum seekers at the Southern Border. In this way, Dems unwisely are playing along with the GOP nativists and giving them “cover” for their lies.

I’ll admit to initially being somewhat skeptical about the parole program, mainly because it could be seen as deflecting attention from much needed reforms and revitalization of existing legal programs for the admission of refugees and asylees that had been intentionally “kneecapped” by the Trump Administration.

Of course, no “pilot program” like this — particularly one with nationality restrictions and somewhat arbitrary numerical limits — can solve overnight problems allowed to fester for years. Yet, the parole program has demonstrated important principles that should form the basis for more durable legislative reforms of our legal immigration system:

Given realistic options, most individuals would choose to be pre-screened and apply from abroad (i/o/w “If you build it, they will use it!”);
Private sponsorships can play a key role in the selection, welcoming, resettlement, and integration process for legal immigration;
Allowing immigrants to work immediately upon arrival — rather than forcing them into an overburdened and over-bureaucratized work authorization process — benefits everyone;
More robust legal immigration opportunities will reduce pressure on the border and keep cases out of the backlogged Immigration Courts.

Rather than being a “false bone of contention” in the “immigration debate,” innovations like the parole program should form an empirical basis for bipartisan legal immigration reform and expansion that will benefit our nation and those who seek to become part of it in the 21st Century.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-08-24

⚖️ GIVING CONTEXT TO THE GOP’s OVERHYPED “BORDER TERRORIST” CLAIMS: Experts Set The Record Straight!

Maria Ramirez Uribe reports for PolitiFact:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/oct/27/ask-politifact-how-many-people-on-the-terrorist-wa/

Some Republican lawmakers are flagging Hamas’ attack on Israel as an example of why more security is needed at the southern U.S. border. Hamas militants breached a border fence and attacked Israeli villages bordering the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7.

“Potential terrorists are attempting to cross our southern border. In September alone, 18 illegal immigrants on the terror watchlist were caught at the border,” U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., posted Oct. 21 on X. “The attack on Israel should serve as a warning as to why we must secure the border.”

The next day, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also mentioned the terrorist watchlist on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

“We just caught 18 people, just last month, on the FBI terrorist watchlist, coming across our border,” McCarthy said. “More than 160 have done it this year, a record breaking.”

U.S. immigration officials have encountered rising numbers of people on the watchlist. But not everyone on the list is a terrorist, and not everyone encountered is allowed to enter the country.

Terrorism and immigration experts say that the threat of attacks in the U.S. and Israel are incomparable.

“They both involve borders, but the comparison ends there,” David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told us. “People aren’t crossing the border to conduct terrorist attacks or take over parts of the United States. A very small percentage may come to commit ordinary crimes, like selling drugs, but overwhelmingly, they are coming for economic opportunity and freedom.”

McCarthy’s office did not respond to our query for more information. A Blackburn spokesperson pointed us to a Fox News reporter’s post on X. Customs and Border Protection did not confirm whether 18 people were stopped in September.

Here’s what we know about who is on the terrorist watchlist, and what the data can and can’t tell us.

. . . .

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

Read Maria’s complete article which includes comments from real experts like Professor Stephen Yale Loehr, Professor Denise Gilman, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and others in addition to David Bier. They stand in sharp and long overdue contrast with the GOP’s alarmist, out of context, claims.

It’s little wonder that a party of anti-democracy activists, insurrectionists, and election deniers would want to deflect attention from themselves onto folks who are overwhelmingly coming to save their lives and to work hard and contribute to our economic growth!

I have previously “called out” Kristen Welker and NBC’s Meet the Press for giving McCarthy an unnecessary public forum for his alarmist narrative. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/23/🚩politics-gops-bakuninist-clown-show-sows-american-chaos🤮☠️/. Worse yet, there was no effective “pushback” from Welker on McCarthy’s attempt to blame vulnerable asylum seekers for the political disorder and threats to our democracy that he and his righty GOP buddies helped sow!

Many thanks to Maria for setting the record straight and to the experts who were interviewed from her article! You actually did the “due diligence” that Welker and others often brush off when “doing immigration.”

Those wanting to learn about what’s really happening at the border and what reasonable improvements might actually be possible will get a chance to hear from Professor Yale Loehr and Muzaffar Chishti in a webinar upcoming on Nov. 7. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/25/🗽tired-of-border-bs-from-nativist-pols-media-bureaucrats-get-the-real-skinny-from-the-experts-yale-loehr-chishti-on-nov-7-zoom-option-availab/.

Of course border security is important! A significant, achievable improvement would be to establish a fair, timely, functional asylum screening and adjudication system at ports of entry so that those seeking asylum will be motivated to use it (rather than attempting to “punish” and “deter” those who can’t use the current dysfunctional DHS/EOIR “system.”) That would give CBP a chance to concentrate on the real law enforcement challenge: identifying and stopping those who seek to harm the U.S. That’s going to take even better intelligence and more sophisticated efforts.

I also wouldn’t minimize that, as pointed out by the experts, CBP has been able to identify and deny entry to individuals on their list. That’s a sign of success, not failure!

To state the obvious, further cutting or restricting asylum (as many in the GOP disingenuously advocate) would only force even more of those seeking refuge into the hands of smugglers and push them into the dangerous lands between ports of entry. Misdirecting enforcement resources to fruitlessly and improperly trying to “deter” and “apprehend” those legitimately seeking refuge will only further dilute the attention that CBP can pay to any real dangers lurking at the border!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-30-23

⚖️🗽🇺🇸 NDPA DC AREA ALERT: Attend A Lunch Conversation With GW Law’s Paulina Vera & AIC’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Tomorrow, March 30, @ GW Law

⚖️ 🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️ HOPE FOR THE FUTURE! — More NDPA “Practical Scholars” Appointed To Immigration Bench!

Here are the “official bios” of the 23 newest U.S. Immigration Judges appointed by A.G. Merrick Garland:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1567516/download

Here’s the”scorecard”from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director, American Immgration Council;

Going off of most recent jobs/backgrounds, we’ve got:

6 ICE trial attorneys

5 nonprofit immigration attorneys

4 private bar immigration attorneys

2 state gov counsels/ALJs

2 federal prosecutors

2 JAG/military hearing officer

1 FBI general counsel

1 OIL attorney

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

Here some names that “stand out” for me personally:

Judge Jennie L. Kneedler (Sterling Immigration Court) appeared in pro bono cases in Arlington when with Steptoe. She also worked for CAIR and ABA Immigration Commission. Her father, Ed Kneedler, is Deputy SG, handles immigration among other areas. He holds the record for OAs before the Supremes for active lawyers. See, .https://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/01/18/usg-bid-to-max-criminal-deportation-law-may-be-on-the-rocks-before-the-supremes/.

Judge Sarah B. Yeomans (Sterling Immigration Court) practiced before me in Arlington.

Judge Alysha M. Welsh (Annandale Immigration Court) worked for Round Tabler Judge (Ret.) Bill Joyce and most recently Human Rights First.

Judge Vimala S. Mangoli (Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center) is long-time Catholic Charities attorney.

Judge Jason E. Braun (Annandale Immigration Court) is most recently from Restoration Immigration Legal Aid of Arlington.

Per Round Table’s Hon.”Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Judge Abby Anna Batko-Taylor, was appointed to the Falls Church Adjudication Center. Abby Anna while with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid won an unpublished, 39-page, unanimous panel decision [on asylum] in the 5th Circuit (attached) that she unsuccessfully moved that court to publish. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in support of the publication request.

CA5 No. 18-60251 Morales Lopez v. Garland OPINION

While Garland has not made the long overdue systemic and leadership changes necessary to institutionalize due process, fundamental fairness, expert scholarship, and best practices at EOIR, positive change from below can still take place and will improve the quality of justice, one courtroom at a time! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/🇺🇸⚖️👨🏽⚖️👩🏽⚖️🗽-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/. Seeing the “ball go in the basket” 🏀 on the “court of justice” ⚖️ inspires others in the NDPA to keep fighting for human rights, fair treatment of asylum seekers, and due process at the retail level of justice!

Full bios of the new Immigration Judges are available at the above link. Congratulations to all!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-13-23

🤯WILL DEMS BLOW CHANCE TO UNITE AGAINST RACISM & SHOW HOW RULE OF LAW WORKS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS @ BORDER? —“[W]hy shouldn’t it be a win for the president, too, comporting to his pledge for a more humane immigration system?”🗽⚖️🇺🇸

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/4/5/2090184/-GOP-states-waste-no-time-suing-over-Biden-admin-s-termination-of-anti-asylum-Title-42-policy

Gabe Ortiz
Staff Writer
The Daily Kos
PHOTO: dailycos.com

Gabe Ortiz in the Daily Kos:

. . . .

Republicans will use Title 42’s rollback “to fearmonger in an election year, using nativist talking points based on falsehoods,” The Boston Globe columnist Marcela García writes. “An invasion is coming! Expect chaos at the border! Yet those sound bites ignore the fact that Title 42 utterly failed even as a border management mechanism: Data show that migrant encounters surged to a record high during the policy.”

Marcela Garcia
Associate
Editor and Columnist
Boston Globe
PICTURE: bostonglobe.com

“For Biden and the Democrats, the end of this disastrous policy should not be framed as a political headache, butas an opportunity to demonstrate that it is possible and suitable to process asylum applications in an orderly, legal, and humane way at the US-Mexico border,” she continued, noting new policy intended to speed up asylum processing, and a plan “that includes directing more resources and personnel to the southern border.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

@ReichlinMelnick

·

Apr 5, 2022

What a mess. Everyone is now openly admitting Title 42 has nothing to do with public health and speaking of it purely in terms of an immigration deterrent—which it isn’t. Title 42 drove up apprehension numbers! There have been 750,000 repeat crossings thanks to Title 42.

Marianne LeVine

@marianne_levine

Tester:”Ending Title 42 is expected to cause a significant increase of migration to the United States and put more pressure on an already broken system. These problems do not only affect the southern border, but put more strain on those working to secure the northern border”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

@ReichlinMelnick

The amount of lies and misinformation about Title 42 is hitting a fever pitch. Title 42 has been an abject failure. It’s not about public health and it’s a terrible deterrent.

It’s shut down the asylum system at the ports of entry and forced desperate people into crossing.

4:25 PM · Apr 5, 2022

72

Reply

Share

Read 2 replies

García is right. For as long as we can successfully keep this policy from continued use, it should be framed as a huge step forward for U.S. asylum law and a victory for vulnerable people who have been blocked from their U.S. asylum rights for more than two years. Isn’t restoring asylum law, especially in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, undoubtedly a good thing? And why shouldn’t it be a win for the president, too, comporting to his pledge for a more humane immigration system?

Or we can just let Stephen Miller and racist border agents keep controlling the narrative, with his lies that restoring U.S. asylum rights “will mean armageddon,” and the agents’ union claiming supposed “mass chaos.”

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

It’s past time for ALL Dem pols and EVERYONE in the Biden Administration to stop enabling racist false narratives about refugees and asylum seekers (and, for Garland to stop “defending the indefensible”)! And, that means that one way or another, the Biden Administration needs to get off their tails and put in place a system to “process asylum applications in an orderly, legal, and humane way at the US-Mexico border.”

It’s very possible! And, it’s no less than what Biden and other Dems promised when they ran in 2020 and solicited the votes of the human/rights, racial justice communities!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-07-22

🇺🇸⚖️🗽TELLING IT LIKE IT IS! — Calling Out The White Nationalist Kakistocracy @ EOIR!

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

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kangaroos — BIA Members Unwind After Harassing Another Expert, Overruling Circuit Court, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

‘White Nationalism’ In Immigration Courts Must Go: Ex-Judge
By Jennifer Doherty
Law360 (January 28, 2021, 9:48 PM EST) — A former immigration judge called on the Biden administration to reorient the mission of immigration courts on Thursday, saying that a “white nationalist program” had taken root under the Trump administration and needs to be eradicated.
Speaking on a panel about a new report showing that the vast majority of non-detained migrants appear at their immigration court hearings, retired Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt called out Trump administration officials over “big lies and bogus narratives” promoted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office of Immigration Review, including claims that detention was necessary to prevent migrants from disappearing.
Judge Schmidt, who used to be the chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals, pointed to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ intervention in immigration cases to relitigate cases such as whether women who suffer domestic abuse in regions with high rates of femicide qualify for asylum, as well as the former administration’s messaging to immigration judges that their role was an extension of DHS’ enforcement mechanism.
“It’s all been part, I think, of the Stephen Miller white nationalist program, that there is no such thing as a good immigrant; all the immigrants are here to take our jobs or to evade the system,” Judge Schmidt said, referring to one of former President Donald Trump’s senior advisers.
Meanwhile, Thursday’s report from the American Immigration Council, an advocacy nonprofit group, confirmed what many immigration judges have known for years, according to Judge Schmidt.
Relying on a sample of 2.8 million immigration court cases where migrants were either released or were never detained, the report found that 83% of respondents with pending or completed removal cases showed up for every hearing, a share that increased to 96% for immigrants represented by counsel.
“Represented asylum-seekers appearing before fair, knowledgeable judges show up for virtually all of their EOIR merits hearings,” Judge Schmidt said.
Based on those findings, the report recommended four policy reforms, including reducing immigration detention and ending the Migrant Protection Protocols, which have forced over 70,000 people to wait in Mexico for decisions in their asylum cases.
The report also called for additional training for immigration judges and the rollback of a law requiring judges to issue orders of removal for migrants who failed to appear, an occurrence the authors found was frequently due to faulty notices to appear.
Creating an Article I, also called a legislative court, would also give immigration judges more independence in their review of individual cases and relieve them from pressure to meet case quotas, according to the report.
UCLA School of Law professor Ingrid Eagly, co-author of the report, said that additional training would serve to reduce inconsistencies between immigration courts and ensure that judges held the
government accountable for its responsibility to notify migrants of their court dates.

. . . .

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

Those with access can read the rest of Jennifer’s article on Law360.

Jennifer Doherty
Reporter
Law 360
Photo: Twitter

I was talking to a lawyer/reporter this afternoon. Her comment was: “Could anybody have designed a worse system for deciding life or death cases?” She was told in “pro bono training” to observe how certain judges like the chairs arranged in the courtroom because it could affect the outcome of her client’s asylum case!

Another attorney I spoke with who had practiced personal injury law couldn’t believe that no immigration cases ever “settled.” Even those with clear merit bounce around the system for years and then go to full hearings, sometimes with inconsistent results!

How can a system operate like this? It can’t! That’s why doubling the number of questionably qualified “judges” has resulted in at least doubling, perhaps tripling, the “backlog.”

Under pressure from White Nationalists like Miller, Sessions, Hamilton, and Barr, EOIR has generated an artificially created “backlog” consisting largely of : 1] cases that could have easily been granted in a fair, functional, practical system; 2) cases that could be granted or placed in line at USCIS (another broken and dysfunctional agency); and 3) cases that never should have been filed in a rational system!

An incompetent BIA has failed to set forth the precedents for granting asylum and other relief that are necessary to restore the rule of law and common sense to a broken system! And they have totally failed to hold biased anti-asylum and nativist-enabling judges accountable! That’s because the BIA itself has become an organ of White Nationalist restrictionist bias bearing little, if any, resemblance to a “court” within the common understanding of the term. “Judicial independence,” impartiality, expertise, due process, and rationality have become “bad jokes” at EOIR!

And, for the past four years, the folks “running” this godawful system haven’t set foot in a courtroom in years (if ever) and don’t have a clue about asylum law or representing humans (rather than “agencies” or “nativists” as clients). It’s a friggin’ inexcusable disaster. FUBAR+++++++!

Judge Garland must end it!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👍🏼Due Process Forever!

PWS

🤡☠️🤮CLOWN COURTS’ DEADLY REOPENING SCHEME ISN’T A “PLAN AT ALL” —It’s A Recipe For Dysfunction, Disaster, & Potential Death By “Malicious Incompetence” — Are There No “Grown Ups” Left in Congress or The Article IIIs With The Guts To End This Stain Our Nation?

https://immigrationimpact.com/2020/08/04/coronavirus-immigration-court/

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on Immigration Impact:

COVID-19 Wreaks Havoc on Immigration Courts With No Clear Plan to Stop Spread

Posted by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick | Aug 4, 2020 | Due Process & the Courts, Immigration Courts

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread throughout the United States, immigration courts around the country remain in turmoil.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) initially postponed all non-detained hearings when lockdowns began in March. However, EOIR refused to close all courts. Hearings for detained immigrants and unaccompanied children continued, despite the risks. Now, nearly five months later, EOIR still has no public plan to limit the spread of COVID-19 as it slowly begins to reopen courts around the country.

Immigration Courts Reopen Across the U.S.

Beginning in mid-June, EOIR began reopening some immigration courts, starting with the Honolulu immigration court.

Since then, courts have reopened for hearings in Boston, Dallas, Las Vegas, Hartford, New Orleans, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, Detroit, and Arlington. However, following the rise in COVID-19 cases in Texas, the Dallas immigration court was open for less than a week before shutting again. It remains closed.

After the court reopened in Newark, immigration lawyers filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the court reopening. They explained that the court has not provided enough safety protocols. According to the lawsuit, they believe at least two deaths, including an immigration lawyer and a clerk for ICE in Newark, can already be traced to court hearings that occurred before the initial shutdown.

At a town hall, the National Association of Immigration Judges discussed the reopening. The union stated that EOIR doesn’t determine which courts reopen. Those decisions come from the local U.S. Attorney, who are political appointees working for the Department of Justice.

No Concrete Plan for Stopping COVID-19 Spread in Courts

Making matters worse, EOIR has still not explained what the criteria are for opening courts. The only safety guidelines the agency has published are simply those generally applicable to the public, such as asking people to socially distance, wear masks, and not appear in court if they have tested positive for COVID-19.

These limited guidelines do not provide anywhere near enough information to ensure safety for people appearing in court.

For example, EOIR fails to explain how translation services will work, which is but one of many unresolved questions about safety. In many courts, interpreters sit directly next to the person for whom they are interpreting so they can hear every word. But social distancing would be impossible in that scenario.

If EOIR wanted to replace all in-person interpretation with telephonic interpretation, that may not be a viable solution. Some people’s cases could be hurt by lower quality interpretation over what are often noisy phone lines.

Courts that have reopened have mostly been hearing only “individual” merits hearings, the equivalent of a trial in the immigration court system. Master calendar hearings, at which dozens of people wait in a courtroom together to review their immigration charges, are not currently happening in most reopened courts.

The agency has indicated that some master calendar hearings with reduced numbers of participants will move forward. But even with a limited caseload, practitioners report chaos and confusion as court hearings begin again.

Lawyers report having cases advanced or postponed with little notice and almost no input. This can be particularly hard for individuals without attorneys. They may be unable to keep track of rapid changes at the courts.

This chaos underscores the need for a public safety plan. EOIR must ensure the public that it can run the courts safely.

Without that plan, the agency’s actions so far reinforce the White House’s goal of keeping the deportation machine running without taking public health into consideration. Before any further courts reopen, EOIR must make its plans clear, or else public health and the right to a fair day in court will continue to suffer.

FILED UNDER: covid-19, EOIR

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

Wow! Talk about a democracy in meltdown!

Some of those caught up by these “crimes against humanity” won’t survive to tell their stories. So, it’s important that those of us who recognize this unending tragedy both document it and insure that history will not let those responsible escape accountability, be they Supreme Court Justices, political leaders, or lower level bureaucrats repeating the hollow “just doing my job” mantra as they enable or carry out these grotesque acts.

For those who watched “Immigration Nation,” how many times did you hear variations of the latter excuse from Federal bureaucrats as they heaped unnecessary, and in many cases illegal and immoral, carnage on their fellow human beings? How many times did you hear folks who are supposed to understand the system falsely use the “get in line” or “do it the right way” lies?

The ugly stain of the Trump regime’s illegal conduct, cowardice, cruelty, dishonesty, and inhumanity, and that of those who aided and abetted it, will not be wiped away!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-20

FELIPE DE LA HOZ @ THE NATION: “The Shadow Court Cementing Trump’s Immigration Policy” — “It’s not a court anymore, it’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”

🏴‍☠️⚰️☠️👎

https://www.thenation.com/authors/felipe-de-la-hoz/

Just eight miles from the White House, the Trump administration has quietly opened a new front in its war against immigrants. Inside a 26-story office tower next to a Target in Falls Church, Virginia, the Board of Immigration Appeals has broken with any pretense of impartiality and appears to be working in lockstep with the administration to close the door on immigrants’ ability to remain in the country.

Created in 1940, when the immigration system was moved from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department, BIA serves as the appellate court within the immigration system, where both ICE prosecutors and noncitizen respondents can appeal decisions by individual immigration court judges around the country. It not only decides the fate of the migrants whose cases it reviews; if it chooses to publish a decision, it sets precedent for immigration courts across the country.

Under previous administrations, the BIA was ostensibly impartial and bipartisan, though mainly out of a long-standing tradition of promoting judicial objectivity. Since the entire immigration court system is contained in the Department of Justice—within an administrative agency known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—immigration judges, including those serving as board members on the BIA, are employees of the DOJ, and, by extension, are part of the executive branch. Unlike their counterparts in the federal judiciary, immigration judges are not independent.

TOP ARTICLES2/5READ MOREPence Masks Up While Trump Keeps Dog-Whistling

Since 2018, the Trump administration has exploited its powers over the BIA by expanding the board from 17 to 23 members to accommodate additional anti-immigrant hardliners. Justice Department memos obtained by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) show that EOIR pushed shorter hiring timelines, which were used to bring on judges with more restrictionist records.

Now the court is stacked with members who have consistently ruled against immigrants, such as one judge who threatened to unleash a dog on a two-year-old boy during a hearing. Numbers obtained by a law firm through a Freedom of Information Request show that the six BIA judges appointed by Attorney General William Barr all had granted asylum in less than 10 percent of cases in fiscal year 2019. (One never granted asylum, despite hearing 40 cases.) An EOIR spokesperson told The Nation in an e-mail that“EOIR does not choose Board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics” and that “Board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”

The most notable example of the administration’s preference for ultraconservative judges came in late May, when Barr appointed David H. Wetmore as BIA chairman. Wetmore, a former immigration adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council, was around for some of the Trump administration’s most egregious policies, including the travel ban and family separation policy.

Although only two decisions have been issued since Wetmore was appointed chair, he seems set to pick up where his predecessor, former Acting Chair Garry G. Malphrus, left off. Malphrus, a George W. Bush holdover, became the face of the court’s lurch to curtail immigrants’ legal protections since Trump took office. He had the hawkish bona fides that made him an ideal chairman under the Trump DOJ: From 1997 to 2001, he served as chief counsel to one-time segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was made associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council after his roleas a Brooks Brothers rioter during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount in Florida—during which GOP operatives staged a protest that disrupted a recount and may have handed Bush the presidency.

Malphrus was made acting chair in 2019, and authored 24 of the 78 BIA precedential decisions issued under the current administration. Almost all of these precedential decisions have made it more difficult for immigrants to win their cases. The board made it harder for victims of terrorism to win asylum and raised the bar of evidence needed for several types of protections.

“It’s not a court anymore, it’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”

Consider this: In a case decided in January, the BIA was considering whether an immigration judge had erred in refusing to postpone a removal decision for a person awaiting a decision on a U visa application—a visa type reserved for victims of certain crimes or those cooperating with authorities investigating a crime—to be resolved. (ICE had recently changed their policies to make it easier to deport people in this situation.) The BIA sided with the judge, acknowledging that the crime victim was “eligible for a U visa” but was not entitled to wait to receive it, in part due to his “lack of diligence in pursuing” one. The decision signals that immigrants eligible for crime victim visas, and who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement, can still be ordered deported.

While federal courts hear public oral arguments and largely deliberate openly, the BIA typically uses a paper review method, which means they receive briefs from opposing parties and hand down a decision some time later with the whole intervening process shrouded in secrecy. “Unlike federal courts, where unpublished decisions are still accessible by the public, and so you can track what judges are saying in decisions that do not make precedent, the [BIA] only sporadically releases those decisions,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.

. . . .

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

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

Filipe’s final point in the article is one we should all keep in mind:

For hundreds of thousands of immigrants, it doesn’t matter if the anti-immigrant paper pushers in this obscure administrative body are tossed out and all of the policy is slowly reversed by another administration; for most, one shot is all they get. Whether a case was winnable before or even after the Trump BIA is irrelevant. The chance to stay in the United States will be lost forever.

The damage to our humanity and our national conscience inflicted by Trump’s White Nationalist regime, wrongfully enabled by complicit Supremes, and aided and abetted by a GOP Senate will not be “cured” by inevitable later “reforms,” be they next year under a better Administration or decades from now, as is happening with other racial justice issues. Undoubtedly, as eventually will be established, the current anti-immigrant and particularly the anti-asylum policies of the Trump regime are deeply rooted in racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. One need only look at the well-documented careers of “hate architects” like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions to see the intentional ignorance and ugliness at work here.

I frankly don’t see how we as a nation ever can come to grips with the racial tensions and demands for equal justice now tearing at our society without recognizing the unconscionable racism and immorality driving our current immigration and refugee policies and the failure and untenability of too many leaders in all three branches who have either helped promote racial injustice or have lacked the moral and intellectual courage consistently to stand up against it. They are the problem, and their departure or disempowerment, no matter how long it takes, will be necessary for us eventually to move forward as one nation.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30–20

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

Michelle Hackman reports for the WSJ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

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

PWS

06-10-20

FINDING OPPORTUNITY IN CRISIS: Trump Regime Uses Health Emergency To Up Child Abuse — Ignores Law, Orbits Kids To Harm’s Way Without Due Process As Feckless Dems Protest!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/coronavirus-unaccompanied-minors-deported

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

In a major departure from previous practice mandated by federal law, the Trump administration has begun quickly deporting immigrant children apprehended alone at the southern border.

Administration officials say they are following public health orders designed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the US, but opponents say they are using the health orders to skirt federal laws that govern the processing of unaccompanied minors.

The New York Times first reported that the Trump administration would apply to unaccompanied children from Central America a March 20 order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that bars the entry of those who cross into the country without authorization.

Previously, unaccompanied children from Central America picked up by Border Patrol agents would be sent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where they would be housed in shelters across the country as they began officially applying for asylum and waited to be reunited with family members in the US.

On Monday, a US Customs and Border Protection official confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the agency was now applying the CDC order to children.

“All aliens CBP encounters may be subject to the CDC’s Order Suspending Introduction Of Persons From A Country Where A Communicable Disease Exists (March 20, 2020), including minors,” read a statement from CBP. “When minors are encountered without adult family members, CBP works closely with their home countries to transfer them to the custody of government officials and reunite them with their families quickly and safely, if possible.”

The statement noted that there is discretion for the agency to exclude certain unaccompanied children from the order if, for example, they show signs of illness.

Immigrant advocates told BuzzFeed News they were alarmed at the policy shift.

“Children arriving at the border, many of whom have endured unimaginable harm at home and on their journey, are the most vulnerable group encountered by border officials. Unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable to trafficking,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council. “The answer to coronavirus cannot be to put children in harm’s way.”

Eleanor Acer, the refugee protection director at Human Rights First, said the move was proof that the Trump administration was “using” a public health crisis “to advance their long-standing goal of overturning US laws protecting vulnerable children and people seeking asylum.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Like all fascists, the White Nationalist nativists of the regime are always looking for new ways to pick on the most needy and vulnerable. And, what presents a better target for cruelty and abuse than unaccompanied kids, particularly when a health emergency offers “cover?”

The Dems sputter but can’t do anything except write letters that go in the regime’s waste baskets.

PWS

O3-30-20

“LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO” UPDATE: SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION JUDGES STAND UP AGAINST TRUMP REGIME’S LAWLESS BEHAVIOR — Elsewhere Along The Border, Most Judges Appear To “Go Along To Get Along” With White Nationalist Agenda!

https://apple.news/A8ArjPBJHQmSHq_XVgoRjKw

Alicia A. Caldwell reports for the WSJ:

U.S.

Judges Quietly Disrupt Trump Immigration Policy in San Diego

Immigration court terminates more than a third of ‘Remain in Mexico’ cases

SAN DIEGO—Immigration judges in this city are presenting a challenge to the Trump administration’s policy of sending asylum-seeking migrants back to Mexico, terminating such cases at a significantly higher rate than in any other court, according to federal data.

Between January and the end of September, immigration judges in San Diego terminated 33% of more than 12,600 Migrant Protection Protocols cases, also known as Remain in Mexico, according to data collected by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Judges in El Paso, Texas, the busiest court hearing MPP cases, terminated fewer than 1% of their more than 14,000 cases.

The nine San Diego judges have repeatedly ruled that asylum seekers waiting in Mexico weren’t properly notified of their court dates or that other due process rights were violated.

The high rate of dismissals is undermining the Trump administration’s goal of quickly ordering the deportation of more illegal border crossers who request asylum, including those who don’t show up from Mexico for their court hearings.

The effect is more symbolic than practical. Such a decision doesn’t mean a migrant is allowed to stay in the U.S., even if they show up for their court hearing. Instead, it saves them from being banned from coming to the country for 10 years and makes it tougher for the government to charge them with a felony if they cross the border illegally in the future. Those whose case is dismissed when they aren’t in court might not even know about the decision unless they call a government hotline.

Spokespeople for Customs and Border Protection, which carries out MPP at the border, and the Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment.

However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose lawyers represent the government in immigration Court, have filed an appeal with a Justice Department panel. The appeal questions whether judges who terminate cases for migrants who don’t show up in court made a mistake.

A spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the immigration court’s parent agency, said immigration judges don’t comment on their rulings.

Denise Gilman, an immigration lawyer and director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, said the high number of dismissals in San Diego sends a message that judges there believe many government’s cases don’t meet minimum legal standards.

That stands in contrast to immigration judges elsewhere, experts and advocates said.

“Everywhere but in San Diego, [judges] are going with the flow,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer and policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which opposes the Trump administration’s border policies.

Immigration judges are unlike most other judges in that they are civil servants, neither appointed nor elected. In civil courts, some jurisdictions are known as more plaintiff- or defendant-friendly. Some federal appeals courts skew left or right, but most don’t rule so frequently on a single policy as immigration judges on MPP.

The Trump administration has sent more than 55,000 asylum-seeking migrants to Mexico to await court hearings under MPP. Migrants were first turned back in January, and through the end of September, just over 5,000 have been ordered deported. Eleven were granted some sort of relief, including asylum, according to TRAC.

Over two recent days in San Diego, multiple judges made clear that they had concerns about Remain in Mexico program as they dismissed cases.

Judge Scott Simpson terminated cases for a family of three from Honduras after ruling that the government violated their due process rights by not properly filling out their notice to appear. As a result, he said, the migrants didn’t know the grounds on which they could fight their case.

“I found that the charging document was defective on a technicality,” Judge Simpson explained to Belma Marible Coto Ceballos and her two children. “It just means that your court case is over.”

MORE ON IMMIGRATION

• Bipartisan House Deal Opens Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrant Farmworkers

• Immigrant-Visa Applicants Required to Show They Can Afford Health Care

• U.S. Immigration Courts’ Backlog Exceeds One Million Cases

• New Trump Administration Rule Will Look at Immigrants’ Credit Histories

Ms. Coto quietly nodded as she listened to an interpreter before her attorney, Carlos Martinez, objected to the government’s plan to send the family back to Mexico while it appeals the termination. She and her children are afraid to return, Mr. Martinez explained, after Ms. Coto was assaulted in Tijuana.

Judge Simpson said he didn’t have the authority to keep the family in the U.S., but sought assurances that authorities would interview Ms. Coto about her fears of being sent back to Mexico.

During a separate hearing that same day, 10 MPP cases were closed by Judge Christine A. Bither, who also raised questions about the migrants’ addresses listed on government documents. She denied a government request to issue deportation orders in their absence.

Judge Simpson, meanwhile, repeatedly questioned how the government would update migrants in Mexico about their cases. Migrants routinely move between shelters or cities and don’t have a fixed address where they can receive mail.

He noted that migrants’ addresses are routinely listed on government documents as “domicilio conocido,” or general delivery in Spanish. In one case, he noted that “domicilio conocido” was misspelled for a migrant family that arrived late to the port of entry and missed the bus to immigration court. The government agreed to dismiss that case.

Write to Alicia A. Caldwell at Alicia.Caldwell@wsj.com

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

As noted in the article, the issues raised by the San Diego rulings are now before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Even if the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges “do the right thing” and reject the DHS appeal, I’m relatively sure that Billy Barr will change the result so that the DHS “wins” (and justice “loses”) no matter what the law says.

Larger question: a system where the biased prosecutor gets to hire and supervise the “judges” and then change the result if the individual nevertheless wins is obviously unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. So whatever happened to the Article III Courts whose job it is to uphold the Constitution and enforce the Bill of Rights against Executive overreach (which is exactly why the Bill of Rights was included in our Constitution)? Why are those gifted with life-tenure so feckless in the face of clear Executive tyranny?

Some Immigration Judges who lack life tenure and the other protections given to Article III judges are willing to stand up; those who are empowered so they can stand up instead stand by and watch injustice unfold every day in this fundamentally unfair system that is an insult to Constitutional Due Process, a mockery of justice, and a disgrace to their oaths of office!

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

PWS

SUPREME DISGRACE: Instead Of Protecting The Individual Rights Of Our Most Vulnerable Asylum Seekers, The Supremes’ Majority Joins The White Nationalist Assault On Refugee Laws & Human Dignity!

Azam Ahmed
Bureau Chief, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean
NY Times

https://apple.news/AzVf9gcH2QyOC67VugroXQg

By Azam Ahmed and Paulina Villegas

MEXICO CITY — Thousands of people fleeing persecution, most from Central America, line up at the United States’ southern border every day hoping for asylum. They wait for months, their names slowly crawling up a hand-drawn list until they are allowed to present their case to American immigration authorities.

After the United States Supreme Court issued an order this week, almost none of them will be eligible for asylum.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to enforce new rules that bar asylum applications from anyone who has not already been denied asylum in one of the countries they traveled through on their way to the United States.

The rule is among the most stringent measures taken by this administration in its battle to halt migration, upending decades of asylum and humanitarian norms. It is likely to affect hundreds of thousands of migrants traveling through Mexico to reach the United States: Eritreans and Cameroonians fleeing political violence. Nicaraguans and Venezuelans fleeing repression.

And the largest group of all: Hondurans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans escaping the twin scourges of poverty and gangs.

“This takes away all hope,” said Eddie Leonardo Caliz, 34, who left San Pedro Sula in Honduras with his wife and two kids three months ago to try to escape gang violence, and spoke from a shelter in southern Mexico. With measures like this, he said, the Trump administration “is depriving us of the opportunity to be safe.”

The new rule, which has been allowed to take effect pending legal challenges, is consistent with the Trump administration’s posture of hostility and rejection for those seeking protection in the United States.

Whether by separating families of migrants, by drastically limiting the number of asylum applications accepted on a given day or by returning those entering the United States to Mexico to await their hearings, the administration has shown a dogged determination to discourage migration.

Central American migrants at the Amar shelter in Nuevo Laredo in July.

Luis Antonio Rojas for The New York Times

And it has put tremendous pressure on Mexico to help meet its goal, threatening months ago to escalate tariffs on all Mexican goods if the nation did not buffer the surge of migrants heading to the United States from Central America and elsewhere.

Mexico responded. This week, when Mexican and American officials met in Washington to discuss progress on the issue, the Mexican delegation took great pains to show how its crackdown along its border with Guatemala and throughout the country has reduced migration flows to the United States by more than 50 percent in the last three months.

Mexico’s actions, though applauded by Trump administration officials this week, have overwhelmed its troubled migration system. The number of individuals applying for asylum in Mexico has already skyrocketed in the last few years, as the United States has tightened its borders.

This rule could add to that burden, with many more applying for asylum in Mexico, despite the danger of remaining in Mexico. Violence there has soared to the highest levels in more than two decades. Stories of migrants kidnapped along the border abound, as criminal organizations await their return from the United States or pick them off as they attempt to cross the border.

Several migrants who are making their way north said in interviews on Thursday that the new rule would not deter them. For most, the hope of a new life in the United States outweighed whatever legal worries might lie ahead.

“I know things are getting more and more complicated in the U.S.,” said Noel Hernández, 21, who was staying at a migrant shelter in Guatemala after leaving his home in Tegucigalpa, in Honduras, a few days ago.

“It’s like flipping a coin,” he said. “I either win or I lose.”

Others said they would try to make it in Mexico, despite the violence, or in Guatemala, a nation with a barely functional asylum system.

Oscar Daniel Rodríguez, 33, from San Salvador, has been in Guatemala with his wife and 3-year-old son for a month now, and says he will apply for asylum there.

He had applied for asylum in Mexico during a previous trek, and was rejected. If he is denied in Guatemala, he will try again in Mexico, he said. If they deny him again, he will try the United States.

Migrants from a caravan, along with organizers and legal observers, at the pedestrian crossing that will lead them to the U.S, in 2018.

Meghan Dhaliwal for The New York Times

“No matter how long it takes, and how long we have to wait, what we want is to give our son a better future,” he said.

Mexican asylum applicants, who don’t have to transit through another country to reach the United States, are not impacted by the new policy.

Like past efforts by the Trump administration to curb migration, Wednesday’s order could prove a burden for Mexico.

A senior Mexican official who spoke anonymously because the government has not addressed the issue publicly said that, for now, individuals who seek to apply will not fall under a previous provision, called Migrant Protection Protocol. That provision sends those applying for asylum in the United States back to Mexico to await their hearings.

Instead, migrants will either have to apply for another form of relief in the United States — with a higher bar for acceptance and fewer protections — or be deported back to their home countries.

Mexico is already playing host to tens of thousands of migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in the United States. Its migrant detention facilities can be overcrowded, unsafe and unsanitary.

Asylum applications there have soared in the last year, reaching about 50,000 through August, compared to fewer than 30,000 applications in the same period a year ago. This has placed a strain on Mexican society and on a system ill-equipped to handle such demand.

“We see detention centers crammed with migrants and children, riots, social problems arising, human rights abuses, and rising xenophobia among Mexicans,” said Jorge Chabat, a professor of international relations the University of Guadalajara. “The Mexican government has then little to no other choice but to design long-term migration policies to deal with the large number of migrants coming and staying now in Mexico.”

“There is not much else we can do,” he added, ruefully, “besides maybe lighting a candle for the Virgin of Guadalupe and praying for Trump not to be re-elected.”

Raftsmen wait for clients at a river crossing between the Guatemala-Mexico border.

Luis Antonio Rojas for The New York Times

The initial rule to block asylum sent shock waves among immigrant rights advocates when it was issued by the Trump administration in July of this year. It was almost immediately challenged in lawsuits.

The initiative was a unilateral move by the Trump administration after failed negotiations with Mexico and Guatemala to reach deals, called safe third country agreements, that would have required those countries to absorb asylum seekers who passed through them on their way to the United States.

Though Guatemala eventually caved to the administration’s pressure, and reached a safe third country agreement with the United States, Mexico remained firm in its refusal.

Now, with the Supreme Court allowing the asylum rule to go into effect, some feel the United States got what it wanted anyway — without the other countries’ consent.

“This is the latest step in terms of Trump’s policies to push Mexico to become a safe third country, and to make a big chunk of the migration flow stay in Mexico permanently and deter them from traveling north,” said Raúl Benítez, a professor of international relations at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

The Mexican government, for its part, insists the move is not the same as a safe third country arrangement, which would require a bilateral agreement and would automatically send the majority of asylum seekers back to Mexico for good.

Neither Mexican officials nor independent experts believe it will lead to an immediate influx of returnees to Mexico. Instead, it could leave those who have been returned to Mexico while they await hearings more likely to stay because they will not be granted protection in the United States.

While the new rules will inhibit most migrants from applying for asylum, there are other forms of protected status that remain open to them, though the bar to entry is much higher.

Under current asylum law, individuals must show a credible fear, which is figured to be a 10 percent chance that they will face persecution if sent back home. The threshold for the two remaining protections now — so-called withholding status and qualification under the convention against torture — is reasonable fear. To qualify, the applicant must show a probability of being persecuted back home that is greater than 50 percent.

“The people affected by this policy are the most vulnerable — those without lawyers and those without knowledge of the system,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration attorney with the Immigration Council. “Those without lawyers are being asked to meet a standard almost impossible for someone uneducated in asylum law to meet.”

Daniele Volpe contributed reporting from Guatemala City.

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

So, just why are Justices like Breyer and Kagan tarnishing their legacies by joining with their White Nationalist enabling brethren in this all out assault on the Refugee Act of 1980, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, Human Rights, and human dignity?

The latest Trump Administration illegal absurdity encouraged, aided, and abetted by the Supremes: Honduras, one of the most dangerous and corrupt refugee sending countries in the world without a functioning asylum system, as a “Safe Third Country.” Obviously, the actions of an Administration confident that the majority of the Supremes share their corruption and cowardice when it comes to enforcing America’s long-standing human rights obligations.

Although it might not have occurred to the geniuses of the Trump Administration, and certainly not to the Supremes’ majority who apparently believe themselves exempt from the practical consequences of their actions, each of the failed states in the Northern Triangle has a seacoast which would allow ocean transit to the U.S. without touching any other country. So, the Trump White Nationalists and their Supreme enablers could be triggering another “Golden Venture” debacle or the type of even more dangerous sea exodus that happened in the Mediterranean when the EU restricted asylum applicants at its land borders.

Or, it’s possible that smugglers will simply “sell” refugees on the very plausible idea that the U.S. refugee system and our commitment to the “rule of law” is nothing but a joke. In that case, smuggling individuals into the interior of the U.S will become an even bigger business. No way they will ever all be caught, even with ICE acting as Trump’s “New American Gestapo.” Higher risk means more profits for smugglers, more death and exploitation for migrants, and more unscreened “extralegal migration” into the U.S.

Up until Trump, the U.S. had been lucky. Most asylum seekers presented themselves at ports of entry or nearby Border Patrol Stations and trusted themselves to the U.S. asylum system for orderly processing. Even those who managed to enter the U.S. usually “affirmatively applied” through the USCIS Asylum Offices.

The current mess in the legal system was almost entirely self-created by the “malicious incompetence” on the part of the Government’s immigration enforcement authorities. The “new message” is clear: only fools should use the US legal system, which in the case of asylum now more closely resembles a Third World dictatorship.

Once folks abandon the U.S. legal system, all of the land and sea borders and indeed the entire land mass of the U.S. will potentially “come into play” for smugglers and their desperate human cargoes of forced migrants. No wall will be long and high enough, no jail cells big enough, no child abuse severe enough, and no extralegal Supreme Court endorsed racist program nasty enough to control the flow of forced migrants seeking shelter. It might well lead to an internal police force that will trample the individual rights of all Americans. But, it won’t stop human migration until the U.S. downward spiral finally reaches the point where we are no better than the “sending countries” from which people are fleeing.

The other possibility is that conditions in the sending countries improve over time so that most folks will stay put. But, the Administration has shown no interest in investing in long term solutions to forced migration.

Immigration is a sign of a strong country; xenophobia a weak and cowardly one. Unhappily, the Supremes have have abandoned the former vision and become front and center in encouraging and enabling the latter.

PWS

09-13-19

DUE PROCESS: I Speak Out Against Latest DOJ Attack On Due Process & Judicial Independence!

https://apple.news/AF5h6SB1USvW1DbhapvzZLw

Alan Pyke reports for ThinkProgress:

Shakeup of immigration court system threatens migrants’ due process

Migrants may soon have a much harder time finding lawyers and understanding their rights in immigration court, as the Trump administration pursues a major overhaul of the agency that oversees those proceedings.

The crucial office that provides basic legal information to migrants and helps connect some of them to pro-bono immigration lawyers will be merged into a Trump-created unit widely viewed as the nerve center of his immigration power grab. Though Friday’s reorganization rule makes no specific threat to shutter those legal assistance programs, the president has wanted to kill them for more than a year.

The bureaucratic reshuffle leaves the assistance programs “buried deep in the bowels” of an agency that today “never does anything without some ulterior political motive relating to the restrictionist immigration agenda,” retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt told reporters Friday.

The regulations concern the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), where the work of applying immigration laws to individual human cases gets done. In addition to burying the legal-assistance work in a team Trump created, the rule endows EOIR’s director with vast new power to change how immigration laws are applied.

The proposal “shows [the] Trump Administration’s ‘weaponization’ of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making,” Schmidt told reporters in an email.

Immigration courts, despite their name, are not independent judicial forums. And because deportation is a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one, migrants who come before the courts are not guaranteed counsel.

Any given migrant’s ability to vindicate the rights they do have in immigration court therefore ends up resting, in many cases, with the presiding judge. If the law says a given migrant’s case might merit a stay of deportation or other relief, and an immigration judge applies the law accordingly, the system slows down and fewer people are evicted from the country.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed immigration judges to set aside those legal niceties in favor of rapid removal orders for almost everyone they see. Judges now face discipline if they fail to clear 700 cases per calendar year, a speed judges have repeatedly said makes a mockery of due process.

The big winner in Friday’s order is EOIR’s new Office of Policy, created at the start of President Donald Trump’s term. That team will take over management of a key legal orientation program for giving migrants a basic overview of the legal process they’re facing and the rights they have within it.

The Office of Policy has become the prime mover behind various Trump efforts to create a deportation assembly line that favors speedy removals over the fuller individual consideration envisioned in immigration law, experts said.

“The Office of Policy… has in many ways led the Trump administration’s agenda to reduce the independence of the immigration court system,” American Immigration Council policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said in an interview.

Currently, EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs helps link some migrants to pro-bono immigration attorneys as part of its legal orientation work. Having a lawyer “is arguably the single most important factor in determining whether someone is allowed to remain in the United States” at the conclusion of their immigration case, Reichlin-Melnick said.

The new rule moves the pro-bono program into the Trump-created policy office, along with the legal orientation system that’s meant to give migrants without attorneys a fighting chance.

There is nothing in the rule that says the DOJ is killing the pro-bono system or the legal orientation program, Reichlin-Melnick stressed.

“But we know in the past this is something the administration has gone after,” he said, noting that the White House tried to defund the legal orientation work in 2018 only for a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to insist it continue.

“It’s a popular program with pretty much everybody,” he said, “except those inside the Trump administration who think we shouldn’t be spending money on helping people know their rights, because that slows things down.”

The same Office of Policy is widely blamed for concocting the 700-case-per-year standard that judges and experts view as an intentional demolition of immigrants’ due process rights. It is also seen as the driving force behind a new piece of technology that displays a speed gauge on judges’ desks while they work, glaring red when they take the time to explore factual disputes or delve into process issues of a given case and fall behind the administration’s speed requirements.

“That kind of pressure creates problems, even if it doesn’t mean that people are going to explicitly deny cases because of it,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Even the most well-minded people are affected by someone essentially standing behind them tapping their watch.”

The case-completion rule in question technically came from a different EOIR office. But Trump’s new policy office is understood to have crafted it and passed it to the appropriate internal authority to promulgate.

Last year, National Association of Immigration Judges union head Ashley Tabaddor urged her colleagues to take whatever time a case requires regardless of the administration’s pressure tactics. This summer, the administration announced its intention to dissolve the NAIJ and strip judges of labor protections.

These maneuvers “create the appearance of coercion” of a professional legal staff who are responsible for applying the law to a complex array of individual circumstances, Reichlin-Melnick said. A political team that isn’t getting the results it wants from immigration courts when they scrutinize the facts is turning to threats – judges can be denied raises or terminated outright over the running-clock rules – and increasing the authority its Office of Policy holds over those judges.

The new rule “raises a number of concerns about conflict of interest that could play out. Maybe they won’t – at this point it’s a little bit premature to panic, or to make large declaratory statements about how this rule will affect the process,” he said. “But it certainly raises concerns.”

Former immigration judge Schmidt was blunter.

The new policy office’s “primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes,” Schmidt wrote.

“Look for the [EOIR] Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR,” he wrote, “for the purpose of insuring subservience to [the] Administration’s political enforcement priorities.”

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

Thanks, Alan, for “telling it like it is.”

Pro bono lawyers have been very successful in both helping asylum applicants vindicate their rights and winning cases. They have also given those who lose before the Immigration Judge the ability to exhaust their remedies before the BIA and challenge wrongful denials in Circuit Courts. Almost every day, one or more Circuit Courts find that the BIA has erred or improperly cut corners in some way.

The success of the pro bono program in achieving asylum and other forms of protection is what the White Nationalists in the Trump Administration hate. They don’t like their immorality and illegality constantly exposed to public view. They would much rather “beat up on” defenseless, unrepresented applicants who can’t even understand English, let alone understand the system and the hyper-technical, intentionally restrictive criteria confronting them. Also, lots of denials, even if completely unfair, bolsters the Administration’s false statistical claim that most asylum claims are without merit.

PWS

08-26-19

PROVING MY POINT: DOJ/EOIR “NO-SHOW” STATS LIE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO ASYLUM SEEKERS!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/01/30/asylum-seekers-show-up-for-court/

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick writes for Immigration Impact:

Immigration restrictionists have often repeated a bold and erroneous claim: that there is a serious problem of asylum seekers who come to the U.S. border and disappear once released from detention. But both fact-checkers and independent studies show this is not true. In reality, the vast majority of asylum seekers diligently attend all of their immigration court hearings.

Given that studies consistently show a high appearance rate for asylum seekers, why do some people keep getting this wrong? Boiled down to its simplest answer: the only government measurement on failures to appear in court has been unreliable for years.

If an immigrant fails to appear for a scheduled immigration court hearing, they may be issued an order of removal “in absentia” (or “while absent”). Each year, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) reports the total number of cases that were “completed” by immigration judges. The government report looks at cases that finished with a grant of relief from removal or an order of removal, as well as the percent of case completions which involved an order of removal for failure to appear.

In Fiscal Year 2017, there were 41,384 orders of removal for failure to appear issued out of 149,436 total cases completed. EOIR reported this as a 28 percent failure to appear rate. However, immigration court cases often require multiple hearings before they can be completed and, due to skyrocketing backlogs in the last decade, the average immigration court case takes almost three years to complete.

The government’s statistic counts failures to appear only against the number of cases that are fully completed. By doing this, it neglects to account for the many immigrants who appeared in court in ongoing cases that have not yet reached completion.

As a result, because tens of thousands of immigrants appeared in court in 2017 but did not have a case completed, EOIR’s number does not represent the rate at which immigrants missed court.

Since there are now more than 800,000 people in immigration court, the failure to include these incomplete cases is extremely misleading.

In addition, by only reviewing initial case completions, the statistic doesn’t consider cases where an immigrant missed court through no fault of their own (like in the event of an emergency) and then successfully overturned a removal order. According to an analysis from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), excluding cases where the immigrant successfully overturned a removal order for failure to appear “significantly impacts and reduces the calculated rates.”

From 2012 to 2017, over 1.25 million new cases were filed in immigration court, but only 151,000 removal orders were issued for failure to appear; 13.5 percent of the total. When looking only at 2017, cases in which an immigrant was ordered removed for failure to appear constituted just five percent of the 802,503 cases pending or completed in immigration court.

Despite the flaws with using the failure to appear rate as a proxy for the rate at which immigrants miss court proceedings, the government continues to use this number to make policy. This is a mistake; good policy can only be made based on good data.

Given this error, what is the actual rate at which immigrants fail to appear in court? Unfortunately, there is no exact answer for this. But a series of studies has made one thing clear: the vast majority of asylum-seekers attend all their immigration court hearings.

The Detaining Families report, for example, reviewed every case between 2001 and 2016 where a family was detained by ICE and then released. It determined that 86 percent of families had not missed a single court hearing. This number rose to 96 percent when a member of the family filed an application for asylum.

Other studies have come to similar conclusions. According to a review of immigration court records by TRAC, only 22.9 percent of the 167,219 women and children who entered the United States between 2014 and 2017 were ordered removed for failure to appear. Those who managed to obtain counsel were the most likely to appear for their hearings; only 2.3 percent of that group were ordered removed for failure to appear.

Even government studies show similar results. In 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a study analyzing the outcomes of every person encountered by Customs and Border Protection in 2014. Of the roughly 60,000 individuals who sought asylum at the border that year, only 14 percent had been issued an order of removal that ICE was not able to carry out—likely because the asylum-seeker failed to appear in court and fled.

As long-term studies show, when you actually track individual cases from start to finish, most asylum-seekers diligently appear in court. The government should make policy based on this reality and not their own flawed metrics.

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

Trump, Miller, Nielsen, Sessions, Whitaker, and the rest of the “Band of Sycophants” make immigration policy based on a false White Nationalist agenda incorporating intentional lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and racist myths.

Not only do the stats show that asylum applicants show up for Immigration Court, but the also show a high correlation between represented respondents and appearance.

Rather than disgracefully wasting money on all sorts of expensive, ineffective, and often illegal “gimmicks,” one of the best things the Government could do is work with NGOs, pro bono organizations, and the private bar to achieve “universal representation.” It’s much more “doable” and infinitely more effective than the “Wall folly.” The Government could also help facilitate more trained, non-attorney “accredited representatives” to increase Asylum Office and Immigration Court representation.

Instead, Jeff Sessions slandered and went out of his way to disrespect immigration lawyers and make their already difficult jobs next to impossible. And, Nielsen went out of her way to bar, that’s right, bar, attorneys from initial interviews under her inaptly named “Migrant Protection Protocols.” Those protocols also obviously are a thinly veiled attack on representation at the Immigration Court level.

The Trump Administration and its motley crew of corrupt political officials should be confronted with and held accountable for their tireless lies and White Nationalist distortions that endanger the lives and rights of migrants. Harm to one of the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! And, intentional and unnecessary harm to the most vulnerable is a staple of the Trump Administration!

PWS

01-31-19

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Maria Ramirez Uribe reports for PolitiFact:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Here are the “official bios” of the 23 newest U.S. Immigration Judges appointed by A.G. Merrick Garland:

Here’s the”scorecard”from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director, American Immgration Council;

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Gabe Ortiz in the Daily Kos:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👍🏼Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🏴‍☠️⚰️☠️👎

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

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

Related posts:

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: