"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration, which often boasts about defending religious liberty, has violated the religious rights of a group of volunteers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Trump administration has spent years cracking down on the work of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a Unitarian Universalist ministry in Arizona that provides water and food to migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the border where dozens have died. Various members of No More Deaths have faced fines and even jail for what they consider to be faith-based, life-saving humanitarian aid.
But for the second time in months, a judge has ruled that the government shouldn’t be punishing these volunteers for putting their faith into practice.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled Monday that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” As a result, the government substantially burdened the volunteers’ religious liberty by prosecuting them for this work, Marquez said.
“Given Defendants’ professed beliefs, the concentration of human remains on the [refuge], and the risk of death in that area, it follows that providing aid on the [refuge] was necessary for Defendants to meaningfully exercise their beliefs,” the judge wrote.
Márquez’s ruling reversed the decision of a lower court, where another judge dismissed the volunteers’ religious liberty claims and sentenced them to probation and fines last March.
COURTESY NO MORE DEATHS
A federal judge has ruled that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” From left, they are Natalie Hoffman, Madeline Huse, Zaachila Orozco-McCormick, and Oona Holcomb.
The case against the four volunteers ― Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick ― goes back to December 2017, a year when 32 sets of human remains were recovered from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The volunteers were charged with misdemeanors for entering the wildlife refuge without proper permits and leaving behind jugs of water and cans of beans, which the government called abandonment of property.
The volunteers’ defense hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The law states that if a defendant can prove that the government is substantially burdening her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” then the government has to show that it’s using the “least restrictive” path to achieving its goals.
This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe.Parker Deighan, spokesperson for No More Deaths
RFRA initially had broad bipartisan support. But more recently, the religious right has been using RFRA as a way to secure exemptions for conservative beliefs about abortion and LGBTQ rights. The evangelical Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores famously used RFRA to avoid paying for insurance coverage for contraception.
Under Trump, the Department of Justice has urged a narrow reading of RFRA claims made by people of faith who do not share the administration’s policy goals, according to Katherine Franke, faculty director of Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
“The Trump Department of Justice has taken a biased approach to defending and enforcing religious liberty rights under RFRA, robustly protecting the rights of conservative Evangelical Christians while prosecuting people whose faith moves them to oppose the government’s policies,” Franke told HuffPost in an email.
Michael Bailey, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Arizona, said his team has no issue with Márquez’s finding that strong religious beliefs motivated the defendants’ acts.
“We highly value religious freedom without regard to where on the spectrum one’s beliefs might fall,” Bailey told HuffPost in a statement.
JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES
A volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths delivers water along a trail used by undocumented immigrants in the desert on May 10, 2019 near Ajo, Arizona.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
No More Deaths is a Unitarian Universalist ministry. But all four volunteers are technically religiously unaffiliated, which means they are part of a growing group of Americans who decline to identify with any specific religious tradition.
During testimonies, the four described feeling a spiritual calling to volunteer, inspired by beliefs about the sanctity of human life. They also spoke about taking moments of silence in the refuge to reflect on the suffering of those crossing the desert.
Holcomb said that she had constructed a “personal altar” at her home that included a ring of water bottles she picked up in the desert.
“There is … for me, I will say, like a deep spiritual need and a calling to do work based on what I believe in the world,” Holcomb testified, according to the judge’s opinion.
In its response to the volunteers’ appeal, the government argued that their beliefs were not truly religious because they didn’t explain how they fit into a “particular system of religious or spiritual beliefs.” The government also asserted that the volunteers were “draping religious garb” over “secular philosophical concerns.”
In her opinion, Márquez said that the volunteers’ RFRA claims can’t be dismissed just because they described their beliefs in broad terms and don’t belong to an established religion. She pointed out that religious and political motivations overlapped in the Hobby Lobby case. ThatSupreme Court verdict has shown that government faces an “exceptionally demanding” obligation to be minimally restrictive while imposing on a person’s religious exercise, Márquez said.
Ultimately, the government had failed to demonstrate that prosecuting the volunteers was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest, the judge said.
JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES
Scott Warren, a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths, walks into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to deliver food and water along remote desert trails used by undocumented immigrants on May 10, 2019, near Ajo, Arizona.
Márquez’s decision comes months after another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, was acquitted of a federal misdemeanor charge for leaving water jugs in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge for migrants. The judge in that case also acknowledged that Warren’s action was protected by his right to religious freedom. That was one of the first times progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected in this way, the Law, Rights, and Religion Project told HuffPost in November.
Franke said there are other cases where progressive people of faith are making religious exemption claims. The Rev. Kaji Douša, a New York pastor and immigrant rights activist, claims the federal government violated her religious freedom when she was detained and placed on a watch list for ministering to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The government has “trivialized” Douša’s RFRA claims and urged the court to dismiss them, Franke said.
In Philadelphia, the DOJ is trying to prevent a faith-based overdose prevention organization from opening a safe injection site, arguing that its “true motivation is socio-political or philosophical — not religious — and thus not protected by RFRA.”
Franke said that when Congress passed RFRA in 1993, the statute was meant to protect the religious liberty of people across a wide spectrum of beliefs, “not just some, and certainly not only those who hold religious beliefs that were shared with the current federal administration.”
Parker Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, told HuffPost that Márquez’s ruling on Monday reaffirms that “providing humanitarian aid is never a crime.”
“This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe,” she said. “We hope that that Judge Marquez’s ruling signifies a shift towards religious freedom exemptions being used to protect the work of people and organizations fighting on the side of justice, such as migrant solidarity organizations and indigenous peoples fighting for protection of their sacred lands and traditions, rather than protection for discrimination and bigotry.”
******************************
So, here’s the deal.
The Trump (the least religious and most immoral President in U.S. History) regime uses a bogus “religious protection” rationale to cloak far-right programs of hate, intolerance, dehumanization, marginalization, and cruelty directed at people of color, the LGBTQ community, migrants, refugees, women, children, Muslims, Jews, and other vulnerable groups. According to the regime, “religious freedom” is limited to the “extremist religious right.”
Then, the regime attempts to misuse “the law” to punish those who actually “show Christ-like love in word and in deed.” To her credit, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez “just said no” to this disingenuous nonsense.
The only way to stop the intellectual dishonesty, mockery of religious humanitarian principles, and misuse of our laws is to oust Trump and his enablers from office at every level. Otherwise, we can expect the persecution and cruelty to continue.
And don’t be surprised if the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes find a way to manipulate the system to enable the persecution of others to continue and grow worse. It’s what complicit “judges” do in the face of tyrants.
While the regime is using your tax dollars to pervert the law to persecute humanitarian workers, they are simultaneously violating our Constitution, our statutes, and our international obligations, with the connivence of the Supremes and Federal Appeals Courts who choose to look the other way rather than standing up for individuals’ rights against authoritarian overreach.
It’s time to stand up for our Constitutional rights, human rights, and human decency. Throw the corrupt and immoral GOP and their collaborators out of office at the next election, and bring in Government officials, legislators, and life-tenured judges who are willing and able to stand up for their oaths of office!
Stop Deporting Salvadorans Who Would Face Risks to Their Safety, Lives
The US government has deported people to face abuse and even death in El Salvador. The US is not solely responsible—Salvadoran gangs who prey on deportees and Salvadoran authorities who harm deportees or who do little or nothing to protect them bear direct responsibility—but in many cases the US is putting Salvadorans in harm’s way in circumstances where it knows or should know that harm is likely.
Of the estimated 1.2 million Salvadorans living in the United States who are not US citizens, just under one-quarter are lawful permanent residents, with the remaining three-quarters lacking papers or holding a temporary or precarious legal status. While Salvadorans have asylum recognition rates as high as 75 percent in other Central American nations, and 36.5 percent in Mexico, the US recognized just 18.2 percent of Salvadorans as qualifying for asylum from 2014 to 2018. Between 2014-2018, the US and Mexico have deported about 213,000 Salvadorans (102,000 from Mexico and 111,000 from the United States).
No government, UN agency, or nongovernmental organization has systematically monitored what happens to deported persons once back in El Salvador. This report begins to fill that gap. It shows that, as asylum and immigration policies tighten in the United States and dire security problems continue in El Salvador, the US is repeatedly violating its obligations to protect Salvadorans from return to serious risk of harm.
Some deportees are killed following their return to El Salvador. In researching this report, we identified or investigated 138 cases of Salvadorans killed since 2013 after deportation from the US. We found these cases by combing through press accounts and court files, and by interviewing surviving family members, community members, and officials. There is no official tally, however, and our research suggests that the number of those killed is likely greater.
Though much harder to identify because they are almost never reported by the press or to authorities, we also identified or investigated over 70 instances in which deportees were subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm, usually at the hands of gangs, or who went missing following their return.
In many of these more than 200 cases, we found a clear link between the killing or harm to the deportee upon return and the reasons they had fled El Salvador in the first place. In other cases, we lacked sufficient evidence to establish such a link. Even the latter cases, however, show the risks to which Salvadorans can be exposed upon return and the importance of US authorities giving them a meaningful opportunity to explain why they need protection before they are deported.
The following three cases illustrate the range of harms:
In 2010, when he was 17, Javier B. fled gang recruitment and his particularly violent neighborhood for the United States, where his mother, Jennifer B., had already fled. Javier was denied asylum and was deported in approximately March 2017, when he was 23 years old. Jennifer said Javier was killed four months later while living with his grandmother: “That’s actually where they [the gang, MS-13 (or Mara Salvatrucha-13)] killed him.… It’s terrible. They got him from the house at 11:00 a.m. They saw his tattoos. I knew they’d kill him for his tattoos. That is exactly what happened.… The problem was with [the gang] MS [-13], not with the police.” (According to Human Rights Watch’s research, having tattoos may be a source of concern, even if the tattoo is not gang-related).
In 2013, cousins Walter T. and Gaspar T. also fled gang recruitment when they were 16 and 17 years old, respectively. They were denied asylum and deported by the United States to El Salvador in 2019. Gaspar explained that in April or May 2019 when he and Walter were sleeping at their respective homes in El Salvador, a police patrol arrived “and took me and Walter and three others from our homes, without a warrant and without a reason. They began beating us until we arrived at the police barracks. There, they held us for three days, claiming we’d be charged with illicit association (agrupaciones ilícitas). We were beaten [repeatedly] during those three days.”
In 2014, when she was 20, Angelina N. fled abuse at the hands of Jaime M., the father of her 4-year-old daughter, and of Mateo O., a male gang member who harassed her repeatedly. US authorities apprehended her at the border trying to enter the US and deported her that same year. Once back in El Salvador, she was at home in October 2014, when Mateo resumed pursuing and threatening her. Angelina recounted: “[He] came inside and forced me to have sex with him for the first time. He took out his gun.… I was so scared that I obeyed … when he left, I started crying. I didn’t say anything at the time or even file a complaint to the police. I thought it would be worse if I did because I thought someone from the police would likely tell [Mateo].… He told me he was going to kill my father and my daughter if I reported the [original and three subsequent] rapes, because I was ‘his woman.’ [He] hit me and told me that he wanted me all to himself.”
As in these three cases, some people deported from the United States back to El Salvador face the same abusers, often in the same neighborhoods, they originally fled: gang members, police officers, state security forces, and perpetrators of domestic violence. Others worked in law enforcement in El Salvador and now fear persecution by gangs or corrupt officials.
Deportees also include former long-term US residents, who with their families are singled out as easy and lucrative targets for extortion or abuse. Former long-term residents of the US who are deported may also readily run afoul of the many unspoken rules Salvadorans must follow in their daily lives in order to avoid being harmed.
Nearly 900,000 Salvadorans living in the US without papers or only a temporary status together with the thousands leaving El Salvador each month to seek safety in the US are increasingly at risk of deportation. The threat of deportation is on the rise due to various Trump administration policy changes affecting US immigration enforcement inside its borders and beyond, changes that exacerbated the many hurdles that already existed for individuals seeking protection and relief from deportation.
Increasingly, the United States is pursuing policies that shift responsibility for immigration enforcement to countries like Mexico in an effort to avoid any obligation for the safety and well-being of migrants and protection of asylum-seekers. As ever-more restrictive asylum and immigration policies take hold in the US, this situation—for Salvadorans, and for others—will only worsen. Throughout, US authorities are turning a blind eye to the abuse Salvadorans face upon return.
Some people from El Salvador living in the United States have had a temporary legal status known as “Temporary Protected Status” or “TPS,” which has allowed those present in the United States since February 2001 (around 195,000 people) to build their lives in the country with limited fear of deportation. Similarly, in 2012, the Obama administration provided some 26,000 Salvadorans with “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or “DACA” status, which afforded some who had arrived as children with a temporary legal status. The Trump administration had decided to end TPS in January 2020, but to comply with a court order extended work authorization to January 2021. It remains committed to ending DACA.
While challenges to both policies wend their way through the courts, people live in a precarious situation in which deportation may occur as soon as those court cases are resolved (at the time of writing the DACA issue was before the US Supreme Court; and the TPS work authorization extension to January 2021 could collapse if a federal appellate court decides to reverse an injunction on the earlier attempt to terminate TPS).
Salvadoran asylum seekers are also increasingly at risk of deportation and return. The Trump administration has pursued a series of policy initiatives aimed at making it harder for people fleeing their countries to seek asylum in the United States by separating children from their parents, limiting the number of people processed daily at official border crossings, prolonging administrative detention, imposing fees on the right to seek asylum, extending from 180 days to one year the bar on work authorization after filing an asylum claim, barring asylum for those who transited another country before entering the United States, requiring asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico, where many face dangers, and attempting to narrow asylum.
These changes aggravated pre-existing flaws in US implementation of its protection responsibilities and came as significant numbers of people sought protection outside of El Salvador. In the decade from 2009 to 2019, according to government data, Mexican and United States officials made at least 732,000 migration-related apprehensions of Salvadoran migrants crossing their territory (175,000 were made by Mexican authorities and just over 557,000 by US authorities).
According to the United Nations’ refugee agency, the number of Salvadorans expressing fear of being seriously harmed if returned to El Salvador has skyrocketed. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of Salvadoran annual asylum applicants in the US grew by nearly 1,000 percent, from about 5,600 to over 60,000. By 2018, Salvadorans had the largest number (101,000) of any nationality of pending asylum applications in the United States. At the same time, approximately 129,500 more Salvadorans had pending asylum applications in numerous other countries throughout the world. People are fleeing El Salvador in large numbers due to the violence and serious human rights abuses they face at home, including one of the highest murder rates in the world and very high rates of sexual violence and disappearance.
Despite clear prohibitions in international law on returning people to risk of persecution or torture, Salvadorans often cannot avoid deportation from the US. Unauthorized immigrants, those with temporary status, and asylum seekers all face long odds. They are subjected to deportation in a system that is harsh and punitive—plagued with court backlogs, lack of access to effective legal advice and assistance, prolonged and inhumane detention, and increasingly restrictive legal definitions of who merits protection. The US has enlisted Mexico—which has a protection system that its own human rights commission has called “broken”—to stop asylum seekers before they reach the US and host thousands returned to wait for their US proceedings to unfold. The result is that people who need protection may be returned to El Salvador and harmed, even killed.
Instead of deterring and deporting people, the US should focus on receiving those who cross its border with dignity and providing them a fair chance to explain why they need protection. Before deporting Salvadorans living in the United States, either with TPS or in some other immigration status, US authorities should take into account the extraordinary risks former long-term residents of the US may face if sent back to the country of their birth. The US should address due process failures in asylum adjudications and adopt a new legal and policy framework for protection that embraces the current global realities prompting people to flee their homes by providing “complementary protection” to anyone who faces real risk of serious harm.
As immediate and first steps, the United States government should adopt the following six recommendations to begin to address the problems identified in this report. Additional medium- and long-term legal and policy recommendations appear in the final section of this report.
The Trump administration should repeal the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP); the two Asylum Bans; and the Asylum Cooperation Agreements.
The Attorney General of the United States should reverse his decisions that restrict gender-based, gang-related, and family-based grounds for asylum.
Congress and the Executive Branch should ensure that US funding for Mexican migration enforcement activities does not erode the right to seek and receive asylum in Mexico.
Congress should immediately exercise its appropriation power by: 1) Refraining from providing additional funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unless and until abusive policies and practices that separate families, employ unnecessary detention, violate due process rights, and violate the right to seek asylum are stopped; 2) Prohibiting the use of funds to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols, the “Asylum Bans,” or the Asylum Cooperation Agreements, or any subsequent revisions to those protocols and agreements that block access to the right to seek asylum in the United States.
Congress should exercise its oversight authority by requiring the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General to produce reports on the United States’ fulfilment of its asylum and protection responsibilities, including by collecting and releasing accurate data on the procedural experiences of asylum seekers (access to counsel, wait times, staff capacity to assess claims, humanitarian and protection resources available) and on harms experienced by people deported from the United States to their countries of origin.
Congress should enact, and the President should sign, legislation that would broadly protect individuals with Temporary Protected Status (including Salvadorans) and DACA recipients, such as the Dream and Promise Act of 2019, but without the overly broad restrictions based on juvenile conduct or information from flawed gang databases.
************************
History will neither forget nor forgive the many Article III Judges who have betrayed their oaths of office and abandoned humanity by allowing the Trump regime to run roughshod over our Constitution, the rule of law, and simple human decency.
Future generations must inject integrity, courage, and human decency into the process for appointing and confirming Article III Judges. Obviously, there is something essential missing in the legal scholarship, ethical training, and moral integrity of many of our current batch of shallow “go along to get along” jurists! Human lives matter!
An impeachment trial with no witnesses or evidence is very American
Opinion by David Love
Updated 9:53 AM ET, Tue February 4, 2020
Senator: This is a tragedy in every possible way 02:05
David A. Love is a writer, commentator and journalism and media studies professor based in Philadelphia. He contributes to a variety of outlets, including Atlanta Black Star, ecoWURD and Al Jazeera. Follow him on Twitter: @DavidALove. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.
(CNN)The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is a relative rarity in American political history, and yet aspects of it have the haunting familiarity of a sham trial in the Jim Crow South, where black people were routinely criminalized and murdered in the name of “justice.” Yes, there are certainly obvious differences between this political trial and the ones that many black Americans have faced, but the common thread remains: going through a trial that has already been decided before it even began.
David A. Love
There is little precedent for how to conduct only the third presidential impeachment trial ever to take place. However, with the Senate vote by the Republican majority to exclude witnesses — likely including former national security adviser John Bolton and indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas — the impeachment trial became nothing more than a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome, a very American ritual of injustice masquerading as due process.
Comparing impeachment to Jim Crow jurisprudence, Rev. William J. Barber II of Repairers of the Breach and the Poor People’s Campaign summed it up when he tweeted: “In the old Jim Crow South, when racists harmed Black folks, the prosecutor & judge would conspire to have a fake trial & ensure the racists didn’t get convicted. We are seeing these same tactics play out in the impeachment trial under McConnell & it’s shameful.”
There is ample evidence the fix was in, that GOP senators had no intention of acting as impartial jurors. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said there was no chance the President would be removed from office, pledged to work closely and in “total coordination” with the White House on impeachment.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham said, “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” And as some senators reportedly fell asleep and played with fidget spinners during the trial, Trump threatened to invoke executive privilege to block the testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton.
Boasting about hiding the impeachment evidence, Trump said “We have all the material. They don’t have the material.”
In a perfect example of jury nullification, Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexanderacknowledged Trump’s wrongdoing as “inappropriate,” yet supported acquittal and voted against witnesses. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wrote in a Medium post, “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”
Preventing first-hand witnesses from testifying and new documents from being entered into evidence is very typical of how trials were conducted in the Jim Crow South, when gerrymandering, voter suppression and violence maintained white political rule, and all-white juries quickly convicted black defendants and exonerated white defendants without the need for evidence or deliberation.
For example, in 1955, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam — two white men — went on trial in Mississippi for the brutal kidnapping, murder and mutilation of Emmett Till — a black 14-year old boy from Chicago.
It was obvious then, as now, that the trial was for show, almost more a justification for what had happened to Till. A white woman, the wife of one of the defendants, alleged Till had whistled at her (decades later she admitted to lying).
A number of witnesses were called, including two black men, one of whom identified the killers, and both of whom were threatened with death for testifying. However, the sheriff reportedly placed other black witnesses in jail to prevent them from testifying. An all-white-male jury — black people were effectively not allowed to vote or serve on juries — deliberated for only 67 minutes to deliver a not guilty verdict. Even the jurors knew they were participating in theater; “We wouldn’t have taken so long if we hadn’t stopped to drink pop,” one juror said.
Similarly, in 1931, nine black teens known as the Scottsboro boys were falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama. While the boys were awaiting trial, a white mob threatened to lynch them. With the exception of the 13-year-old, they were swiftly sentenced to death by an all-white-male jury. Although none were executed, they collectively served 100 years in prison. Some of the boys were retried and reconvicted, and the Supreme Court twice overturned the guilty verdicts.
Echoes of Jim Crow jurisprudence continue to the present day, and even with attempts to reform the criminal justice system, injustices plague the poor and people of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated. When black and Latino teens, known as the Central Park Five, were falsely arrested, interrogated and coerced in the brutal rape and beating a white woman in New York, Trump placed a full-page ad in four newspapers calling for the death penalty. Even after the accused were exonerated by DNA evidence linking another person to the crime, as recently as last year, Trump has declined to apologize for his actions.
It is not surprising that Trump’s GOP would work overtime to conduct a fake impeachment trial with their own narrative and set of facts and no witnesses to avoid accountability. This, despite a CNN poll showing that 69% of Americans want to hear new witness testimony, and a Quinnipiac Poll in which 75% say witnesses should be allowed to testify. A recent Pew poll found a slight majority of Americans supporting Trump’s removal from office, with 63% saying he has definitely or probably broke the law, and 70% concluding he has done unethical things.
However, if the Senate does not reflect the will of most Americans, it is because the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution that exercises minority rule. For example, on a strictly 53-47 party line vote, the Senate voted to reject a series of amendments to subpoena documents and witnesses (for the vote that decided whether to allow witnesses, two Republicans voted with Democrats in a vote that failed 49-51 to allow witnesses at Trump’s impeachment trial).
Those 53 Republican senators in the first vote, as author and reporter Ari Berman noted, represent 153 million Americans, as opposed to the 168 million people the Democratic senators represent. Minority rule is subverting democracy and the rule of law and undermining the popular will, resulting in unjust policies and decisions. This, as Republicans who control the Senate with a minority of popular support block the impeachment of a President who was elected with nearly 2.9 million fewer votes than his opponent. Jim Crow segregationists employed voter suppression, violence and coups to maintain power. Similarly, today’s GOP must rely on anti-democratic methods to cling to power in a changing America, and prop up a President who will most certainly stay in office through malfeasance, playing to xenophobic fear and threats of violence.
Meanwhile, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who has assumed the role of a potted plant throughout most the proceeding, helped create this mess by playing an active role in the erosion of democracy and the legitimacy of the political system. Under Roberts’ leadership, the high court has sanctioned gerrymandering, eviscerated voting rights, and allowed for unlimited money in our elections, including potentially from foreign sources.
If the Republicans hope for an end run around democracy with a kangaroo court, this is nothing new. Following in the footsteps of those who played a part in sham trials in the Jim Crow South, the Trump party cares little about justice, and everything about breaking the rules to maintain power in perpetuity. Unfortunately, sham trials are as American as apple pie.
**********************************
By aligning himself with the totally corrupt, lawless, and immoral Trump and his various scofflaw schemes, Roberts seems intent on following in the footsteps of the now reviled Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision.
Obviously, given a chance at a Second Term, a Senate of toadies, and a complicit, willfully tone-deaf Supremes, Trump has every intention of “Dred Scottifying” immigrants, people of color, the LGBTQ community, political opponents, and other large segments of America.
“Corruption, impunity,” those are words that those of us who actually decided immigration cases saw often in country background information on third word dictatorships and autocracies. Now, thanks to Trump, his Senate toadies, and Article IIIs “go alongs,” those are also words that can be used to describe the American justice system.
In the present climate, immigration lawyers must continue to present judges with creative, intelligent arguments; to present the public with proof of what is wrong with the current system; and to present those in power to change what is wrong with solutions.
I’ve added posts that address each these points. First, I discuss some recent articles in which scholars raise creative legal arguments as to the limits of Chevron deference in appeals to the federal courts. I have also posted a statement of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration and Citizenship subcommittee that was made part of the record of its hearing last Wednesday on solutions to the present crisis in the immigration courts.
I have also posted the group statement of our Round Table on the one-year anniversary of the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy that was drafted by former Immigration Judge Ilyce Shugall, who has volunteered her time to travel to Texas to observe MPP hearings that is meant to raise awareness of the need to end this awful program.
The powers of the Attorney General and the Board of Immigration Appeals to influence law by issuing binding precedent decisions is greatly enhanced by what is known as Chevron deference. The principl
On Wednesday, January 29 at 9:30 am, the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is comprised of former immigration judges who are dedicated to due process in the immigration system. As former immigration judges, we
As we see the results of the regime’s Article III-enabled and encouraged nativist, racist policies like an expanded “Travel Ban” that now includes a large portion of Africa, new non-legislative restrictions on legal immigration, unmitigated expansion of the deadly “New American Gulag,” intentional mistreatment of children, and the continuing abrogation of both Due Process and our binding obligations to protect refugees at our Southern Border and elsewhere, Tess’s last sentence is particularly prophetic:
As the Attorney General and other executive officials attempt to expand their authority to define the terms of immigration adjudication, federal courts should heed the Seventh Circuit’s decision – and remember the foundational legal principle that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
So far, the Supremes and the Circuits have largely “vacated the province and shirked their duties” to the nation and our laws by shrinking and cowering in the face of the regime’s continuing lawlessness, bullying, bias, and tyranny. Indeed, the Supremes have shown a disturbing favoritism to unjustified requests by Trump’s Solicitor General to short-circuit the litigation system and the rules that bind all others.
Not since the Eisenhower Administration’s “Operation Wetback” (obviously one of the regime’s “models” of lawless disregard for human and legal rights, not to mention basic morality) has our national Government shown such overt racism and contempt for migrants of color. Yet, rather than standing tall and delivering a united, powerful, intellectually courageous defense of our Constitution, the “GOP Gang of Five Supremes” backed the dehumanization and demonization of migrants on racial and religious grounds for transparent and invidious political reasons in the “Travel Ban case.” They basically invited and then approved a demonstrably false and “bad faith” national defense “pretext” which the Administration has “jumped on” to justify other attacks on the rule of law.
Now the “ban” has remarkably, but predictably, been extended to a large part of Africa, including its largest economy, Nigeria. Hardly a whimper as Trump disembowels both Constitutional norms and human decency. What’s next on the agenda, Supremes, a bogus Executive ban on all non-White, non-Christian immigration? Who’d be surprised at this point?
Of course, with “constitutional de-personification” well under way with Article III approval, the next targets will be US citizens of color and others who “dare to differ” like the LGBTQ community, women, political opponents, journalists, lawyers, and, finally, judges themselves once their usefulness to Trump and his authoritarian regime is exhausted. The all-powerful, unrestrained, “unitary Executive” has no need of legislature, judiciary, or the people except to “ratify” their authoritarian abuses.
The failure to defend and reinforce the courageous legal community challenging the regime’s authoritarian overreach and the pathetically weak defense of the integrity of judicial colleagues who have tried to hold the regime accountable by Roberts has done nothingbut confirm and reinforce Trump’s pre-existingbelief that courts are “his” tools and judges “his toadies.”
America deserves better from its life-tenured judiciary! What’s the purpose of a supposedly independent life-tenured judiciary that sides with powerful, dishonest, lawless, bullies over the rights of individuals and is unwilling to stand up for the rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
Matter of J.J. RODRIGUEZ, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020)
PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and CASSIDY, Board Members.
OPINION BY: Acting Chairman Malphrus
BIA HEADNOTE:
Where the Department of Homeland Security returns an alien to Mexico to await an immigration hearing pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols and provides the alien with sufficient notice of that hearing, an Immigration Judge should enter an in absentia order of removal if the alien fails to appear for the hearing.
*******************************
Let’s put this in context!
This is an unrepresented asylum seeker “orbited” back to dangerous and chaotic conditions in Mexico. We don’t even know if he’s still alive.
He’s a native of Honduras. Obviously, he fled Honduras and sought admission to the United States for a reason. His only chance of not being returned to Honduras would be to show up for his hearing. Therefore, he would have no obvious reason for failing to appear at his hearing if he were able to do so.
In the past, in cases such as this, the DHS would have either: 1) released the respondent on bond to a known address in the United States that they would have recorded and furnished to EOIR; or 2) detained the respondent.
In the former case, the DHS would have been obliged to provide EOIR with a facially valid address to serve notices at the time of filing the Notice to Appear with the court. In the latter case, the DHS would be responsible for producing the respondent for all scheduled hearings.
Instead, in this case, the DHS chose under the mis-named “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”) (which are actually designed to reject rather than protect migrants) to abdicate its normal duties and send the respondent to an unknown location in Mexico without any reasonable safeguards to insure access to the hearing process or to counsel.
The DHS has no practical idea where they sent the respondent in Mexico and no reasonable method for contacting him or retrieving him.
Incredibly, and apparently with a straight face, the BIA lists the address of the respondent as “Domicilio Conocido, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.” That’s roughly the equivalent of “Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA.” Good luck with that!
How would a U.S. lawyer get in touch with the respondent? How would the Immigration Court notify the respondent of the ever-changing times and dates of hearings? How would the DHS serve the respondent with notices of evidence? Obviously, they wouldn’t.
And, if the respondent failed to appear for a non-existent hearing, he undoubtedly would be “in absentia’d” under the BIA’s warped view of what is fair and reasonable. This whole MPP has obviously been constructed by DHS, with EOIR complicity, as an exercise in naked bad faith and intentional and unreasonable inconvenience to the respondents caught up in it.
In formalizing the MPP, the DHS could have worked cooperatively with the Mexican Government and the private bar to guarantee the respondent’s statutory rights to: 1) return to the United States for his removal hearing; and 2) reasonable access to pro bono counsel in the United States. The DHS chosenot to do either, thereby leaving these statutory obligations potentially unachievable for this respondent. Through the BIA’s mental gymnastics, the DHS’s intentional indolence becomes the respondent’s problem!
It’s common knowledge that individuals returned to Mexico under the MPP are often forced to live on the streets and are in constant danger of kidnaping, extortion, robbery, rape, assault, starvation, and exploitation while in Mexico awaiting hearings.
The DHS makes no effort to ascertain what happens to those sent back to Mexico under the MPP and takes no steps to insure that they are able to return to the U.S. border for their hearings.
The DHS has provided no reason to believe that individuals “relocated” after returning to Mexico either understand what is happening to their hearing rights or have any realistic mechanism for retuning.
Under these circumstances, there is a rebuttable presumption that individuals returned under the MPP who do not appear for immigration hearings have been denied both their statutory right to the hearing process and their statutory right to representation by counsel of their own choosing at no expense to the Government. These statutory rights are integral to insuring due process in the removal hearing process.
The DHS may rebut this presumption by showing either: 1) they made reasonable efforts to locate this respondent in Mexico; or 2) there are reasonable procedures in place with the Mexican Government and with pro bono providers to provide reasonable access to hearings and pro bono counsel that were available to the respondent in this case.
Since the DHS has made no such showing in this case, the Immigration Judge’s decision to terminate the proceedings without an in absentia order is reasonable and proper under the law. Indeed, it is the only lawful outcome.
This is especially true because there doesn’t appear to be any effective way an individual who was inhibited from return to the United States from Mexico for his hearing can seek to reopen an in absentia hearing from Mexico or some other country to which he might have been “orbited” by the Mexican Government.
Indeed, the process followed by the DHS in this case appears to be an intentional derogation of the normal statutory right to a stay of removal from the United States to which an individual challenging an in absentia removal order ordinarily would be legally entitled.
This is, of course, without prejudice to the DHS reinstituting removal proceedings in the future if the respondent is encountered at the border or in the United States.
Sadly, the BIA isn’t the only tribunal to “blow off” their statutory and constitutional responsibilities.
The feckless judges of the Ninth Court of Appeals “took a dive” on their oaths of office by “greenlighting” the illegal (not to mention totally dishonest and immoral) MPP by vacating the District Court’s properly issued preliminary injunction in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan.
As a result of the Ninth Circuit’s dereliction of duty, thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers have been irreparably injured.
Eventually, the MPP will go down as not only fraudulent and invidiously racially motivated, but as one of the most horrible, and preventable, failures of justice in modern American jurisprudence. It will rank right up there with Dred Scott., the Fugitive Slave Laws, “separate but equal,” Chinese Exclusion Laws, and Japanese internment of supposedly bygone ages. Dehumanization, exploitation, and abuse of Government authority is a common theme. It will indelibly stain the reputations of every bureaucrat and judge who touched it without “just saying no.”
While it might already be too late for many of the innocent victims of MPP, no amount of legal gobbledygook or “alternative facts” will save those responsible for initiating, carrying out, and enabling the MPP and similar violations of legal, constitutional, and human rights, and well as human morality, from the judgments of history!
The Trump administration has named a hardline former leader of an anti-immigration group to help set up a new role created by Congress to oversee complaints of civil rights violations in detention centers and help those affected by misconduct, according to an internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman was created in the most recent appropriations bill to “address issues that arise in DHS detention facilities” and remain independent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or US Customs and Border Protection. The office will report directly to the secretary of Homeland Security.
Ken Cuccinelli, the controversial second-in-command at the Department of Homeland Security, appointed Julie Kirchner, former leader of FAIR, a group that advocated for policies that restrict immigration, to help set up the office, according to the memo. Cuccinelli also tapped Tracy Short — a former top ICE official who signed memos during the Trump administration to stop the agency from granting reprieves for certain immigrants facing deportation — to also help figure out the plans for the office.
“To spearhead this effort, I have asked Julie Kirchner, outgoing Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and Tracy Short, Senior Advisor at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to work with senior leadership and staff within the Department to lay the proper foundation for the [office],” according to the memo, which was dated Jan. 28.
Congress provided $10 million for the office to address issues of misconduct by DHS officials in detention centers, establish a process to oversee complaints made against immigration officials, inspect facilities, provide recommendations for improvement, and potentially help those whose rights have been violated while in custody.
“In the immediate days and weeks Julie and Tracy will be contacting a variety of individuals across the Department to solicit their input and request information regarding the formation of this new office,” Cuccinelli wrote.
Kirchner was initially picked as the ombudsman at USCIS in 2017, before her departure in the role was announced late last year.
When her appointment was originally announced in 2017, advocacy groups were outraged, due to her background at FAIR, which the Southern Poverty Law Center had labeled a hate group and “America’s most influential anti-immigrant organization.”
“Kirchner’s new position is a very powerful one, which it makes it all the more disturbing considering her past work,” the SPLC said at the time.
The move to appoint Kirchner and Short to help “lay the proper foundation” for the office will likely spur criticism from Congressional officials.
“That’s like letting the fox watch the hens,” said one congressional staffer in a message to BuzzFeed News.
John Sandweg, former acting head of ICE during the Obama administration, said the move was not surprising, but potentially indicative of how the administration sees the role.
“These are the architects of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies,” he said. “It’s not a surprise they would try to build this thing in a way that makes it as less impactful as possible and seems inconsistent with the intent of Congress when they created the office. We have to wait to see what the end product is.”
DHS did not immediately comment.
ICE has expanded the number of people it detains to record levels under President Trump. As of late January, the agency was detaining nearly 41,000 immigrants. The peak came last summer, when around 55,000 immigrants were in custody in local jails and private prisons across the country.
In December, the House Oversight and Reform Committee announced it had opened an investigation into the medical care of immigrant detainees in the wake of a BuzzFeed News story that revealed a series of allegations of substandard care from a whistleblower.
******************
Totally corrupt!
“Wait and see what the end product is?” John Sandweg, are you really so naive that you think Kirchner will do her job and help detainees to be treated like humans? Come on, man! No way! We already know what’s going too happen. And, it will be the exact opposite of what Congress intended in enacting this legislation. But, it’s not like Congress, or the courts for that matter, hold this regime accountable for scofflaw conduct.
She’s there to insure that cruel and inhuman treatment are the norms, there is no accountability, and that the legion of DHS detention abuses (the “core concept” of the “New American Gulag”) are covered up. In other words, to insure maximum dehumanization, a key part of the regime’s nativist agenda. What in Julie Kirchner’s anti-immigrant zealotry, or Tracy Short’s for that matter, would make you think that there is any “ambiguity” on how this will play out?
Keep those court cases rolling! Notwithstanding their tendency toward complicity, eventually, at least some Federal Judges hopefully can be “shamed” into enforcing laws protecting migrants, recognizing human rights, and requiring human dignity in DHS’s treatment of detainees (most of whom don’t belong in “uncivil” detention in the first place).
Ian M. Kysel Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Here’s a summary from New Due Process Army stalwart and Georgetown Law graduate Ian M. Kysel, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School:
As the amicus briefs in the 9th circuit appeal in Flores rolled in last night, I wanted to flag one in particular on which I am co-counsel: anamicus brief by more than 125 legal scholars and non-governmental organizations. It is attached. In it, we argue that a decision by the 9th circuit allowing the government’s regulations to enter into force would violate U.S. international law obligations. The amici on this brief include several current or former senior UN human rights experts from around the world (including members of the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child) as well as the former Deans of both Harvard Law School and Yale Law School (the latter, Harold Hongju Koh, also formerly served in government as both Legal Adviser and Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the U.S. Department of State). It is unusual to have so many senior experts on an amicus brief at the court of appeals level. The experts make clear to the 9th circuit that the government’s effort to permit indefinite detention of migrant children, including asylum seekers, in secure or more secure facilities with limited ability to challenge aspects of their detention, would violate core human rights protections (including children’s right to be free from unlawful detention and their rights to special measures of protection and to consideration of the best interests of the child) and that the regulations should remain enjoined, as continued enforcement of the settlement remains in the public interest.
Here’s a link to the brief, a “mini-treatise” on the rights of child migrants under international law:
Under Article VI of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, U.S. courts have an obligation to enforce customary international law binding on the United States, as well as to construe federal law consistently with the United States’ obligations under customary international law and treaties ratified by the United States. The Government’s enjoined regulations,2 which repudiate the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Barr (“Flores Settlement”), would violate international law, including the United States’ treaty obligations and customary international law. This Court should decide the appeal in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international law. The policy changes the Government asks this Court to approve would violate the United States’ obligations to safeguard the rights of children to be free from unlawful detention. Under international law, the United States must provide children with special measures of protection and ensure children’s best interests are always a primary consideration. This Court should therefore affirm the District Court.
**************************************
Thanks to Ian and all of his wonderful colleagues for speaking up for the legal (and human) rights of some of the world’s most vulnerable children to be protected against further intentional abuses by the Trump regime and its corrupt intellectually and morally bankrupt bureaucratic toadies (past, present, and, unfortunately, future).
I had the great pleasure of working with Ian and some of his colleagues, including some of my own students and former students, on the International Migrants’ Bill of Rights Initiative at Georgetown Law now continuing at Cornell Law under the leadership of Ian and my long time friend and colleague Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
The original International Migrants’ Bill of Rights Initiative at Georgetown Law was the “brainchild” of my good friends, renowned public international law expert Professor David Stewart, former Georgetown Law Dean and U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees Alex Aleinikoff, CALS Asylum Clinic Director Professor Andy Schoenholtz, and many others.
It’s hard to describe how satisfying it is to see younger folks that I have taught and/or mentored during my career go on to become leaders of the New Due Process Army and to continue the generational battle to make Due Process for migrants a reality, rather than the cruel and lawless charade and parody of justice that it has some under this regime.
Thanks again to Ian and all the others like him for taking up up the fight. And, of course, many thanks to Steve and other scholars and teachers like him for “keeping the fires of Due Process burning bright even during one of American Democracy’s darkest nights!”
Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, 2d Cir., 01-23-20, published
PANEL: WESLEY, CHIN, and BIANCO, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Chin
KEY QUOTE:
2. Political Opinion
To demonstrate that persecution, or a well‐founded fear of
persecution, is on account of an applicantʹs political opinion, the applicant must show that the persecution ʺarises from his or her own political opinion.ʺ Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus, the applicant must ʺshow, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutorʹs motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s political belief.ʺ Id. (emphasis added). The
See Vega‐Ayala v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2016) (ʺVega‐Ayalaʹs general reference to the prevalence of domestic violence in El Salvador does little to explain how ʹSalvadoran women in intimate relationships with partners who view them as propertyʹ are meaningfully distinguished from others within Salvadoran society.ʺ). But see Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 252‐55 (4th Cir. 2019) (remanding for agency to consider whether ʺgroup of unmarried mothers living under the control of gangs in Honduras qualifies as a ʹparticular social group,ʹʺ where record contained evidence that gang in question did ʺindeed target victims on the basis of their membership in a socially distinct group of unmarried mothersʺ).
‐17‐
5
persecution may also be on account of an opinion imputed to the applicant by the persecutor, regardless of whether or not this imputation is accurate. See Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 702, 706 (2d Cir. 2007) (ʺ[A]n imputed political opinion, whether correctly or incorrectly attributed, can constitute a ground for political persecution.ʺ (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Chun Gao v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)). The BIA has explained that persecution based on political opinion is established when there is ʺdirect or circumstantial evidence from which it is reasonable to believe that those who harmed the applicant were in part motivated by an assumption that [her] political views were antithetical to those of the government.ʺ Matter of S‐P‐, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 494 (B.I.A. 1996); see also Vumi v. Gonzalez, 502 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2007).
Here, Hernandez‐Chacon contends that if she is returned to El Salvador she will be persecuted by gang members because of her political opinion ‐‐ her opposition to the male‐dominated social norms in El Salvador and her taking a stance against a culture that perpetuates female subordination and the brutal treatment of women. She argues that when she refused to submit to the violent advances of the gang members, she was taking a stance against a culture of male‐domination and her resistance was therefore a political act.
‐18‐
There is ample evidence in the record to support her claim.6 Gangs control much of El Salvador, including the neighborhood in which Hernandez‐ Chacon lived. The law enforcement systems that would normally protect women ‐‐ police, prosecutors, judges, officials ‐‐ do not have the resources or desire to address the brutal treatment of women, and the Salvadoran justice system ʺfavors aggressors and assassinsʺ and ʺpunish[es] victims of gender violence.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 147. Yet, Hernandez‐Chacon testified that when the first gang member tried to rape her, she resisted ʺbecause [she had] every right to.ʺ Id. at 193. Three days later, when the same man and two other gang members attacked her, she again resisted, to the point where they beat her until she lost consciousness. She argues that the men targeted her for the second attack ‐‐ and beat her so brutally ‐‐ because she had resisted the advances of an MS gang member and they believed she needed to be punished for her act of defiance. Her now husband likewise stated in his affidavit that Hernandez‐ Chacon will be attacked if she returns to El Salvador because ʺ[s]he has managed to fight them off twice, but that just makes them angrier and if she shows her face again, I think they could kill her.ʺ Id. at 269.
At oral argument, the government forthrightly conceded that it was a ʺpermissibleʺ inference that Hernandez‐Chacon was persecuted for her feminist political ideology, though it argued that the record did not compel that result.
‐19‐
6
While the IJʹs decision was thorough and thoughtful overall, her
analysis of Hernandez‐Chaconʹs political opinion claim was cursory, consisting of the following:
[Hernandez‐Chacon] has also claimed that she had a political opinion. I cannot conclude that her decision to resist the advances of an individual is sufficient to establish that she has articulated a political opinion. In trying to analyze a political opinion claim, the Court has to consider the circumstances under which a respondent not only possessed a political opinion, but the way in which the circumstances under which she articulated that political opinion. In this case she did not advance a political opinion. I find that she simply chose not to be the victim and chose to resist being a victim of a criminal act.
Id. at 153‐54.
The BIA dismissed Hernandez‐Chaconʹs political opinion argument
in a single sentence, in a footnote, rejecting the claim ʺfor the reasons stated in the [IJʹs] decision.ʺ Id. at 5 n.3. The analysis of both the IJ and the BIA was inadequate. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548‐49 (granting petition for review and remanding case to agency where IJ failed to undertake the ʺcomplex and contextual factual inquiryʺ necessary to determine if persecution was on account of political opinion). We have three areas of concern.
‐20‐
First, the agency concluded that Hernandez‐Chacon ʺdid not advance a political opinion.ʺ Cert. Adm. Record at 154. But this Circuit has held that the analysis of what constitutes political expression for these purposes ʺinvolves a ʹcomplex and contextual factual inquiryʹ into the nature of the asylum applicantʹs activities in relation to the political context in which the dispute took place.ʺ Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548). We have held, for example, that resisting corruption and abuse of power ‐‐ including non‐governmental abuse of power ‐‐ can be an expression of political opinion. See Castro, 597 F.3d at 100 (noting that ʺopposition to government corruption may constitute a political opinion, and retaliation against someone for expressing that opinion may amount to political persecutionʺ); Delgado, 508 F.3d at 706 (holding that refusing to give technical assistance to the FARC in Columbia can be expression of political opinion); Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 542, 546‐48 (holding that retaliation for opposing corruption of local officials can constitute persecution on account of political opinion); Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017, 1029‐31 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that ʺunion activities [can] imply a political opinion,ʺ and not merely economic position). The Fourth Circuit has recently recognized that the refusal to acquiesce to gang violence can constitute
‐21‐
an expression of political opinion. See Alvarez Lagos, 927 F.3d at 254‐55 (where record contained evidence that gang in question would view refusal to comply with demand for sex as ʺpolitical opposition,ʺ refusal to acquiesce to gang violence and flight to United States could demonstrate imputed anti‐gang political opinion that constitutes protected ground for asylum). Here, the agency did not adequately consider whether Hernandez‐Chaconʹs refusal to acquiesce was ‐‐ or could be seen as ‐‐ an expression of political opinion, given the political context of gang violence and the treatment of women in El Salvador.
Second, the IJ concluded that Hernandez‐Chacon ʺsimply chose to not be a victim.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 154. But even if Hernandez‐Chacon was motivated in part by her desire not to be a crime victim, her claims do not necessarily fail, as her political opinion need not be her only motivation. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (ʺThe applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.ʺ (emphasis added)); Osorio, 18 F.3d at 1028 (ʺThe plain meaning of the phrase ʹpersecution on account of the victimʹs political opinion,ʹ does not mean persecution solely on account of the victimʹs political opinion.ʺ); see also Vumi, 502 F.3d at 158 (remanding to
‐22‐
agency where BIA failed to engage in mixed‐motive analysis). While Hernandez‐Chacon surely did not want to be a crime victim, she was also taking a stand; as she testified, she had ʺevery rightʺ to resist. As we have held in a different context, ʺopposition to endemic corruption or extortion . . . may have a political dimension when it transcends mere self‐protection and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the ruling regime.ʺ Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 547‐48. Here, Hernandez‐Chaconʹs resistance arguably took on a political dimension by transcending mere self‐protection to also constitute a challenge to the authority of the MS gang.
Third, the agency did not consider whether the gang members imputed a political opinion to Hernandez‐Chacon. This Circuit has held that ʺan imputed political opinion, whether correctly or incorrectly attributed, can constitute a ground of political persecution within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.ʺ Vumi, 502 F.3d at 156 (citations omitted); see Chun Gao, 424 F.3d at 129 (in case of imputed political opinion, question is ʺwhether authorities would have perceived [petitioner] as [a practitioner of Falun Gong] or as a supporter of the movement because of his activitiesʺ). Here, the IJ erred in her political opinion analysis by only considering whether Hernandez‐
‐23‐
Chacon ʺadvance[d]ʺ a political opinion. Cert. Adm. Rec. at 154. The IJ failed to consider whether the attackers imputed an anti‐patriarchy political opinion to her when she resisted their sexual advances, and whether that imputed opinion was a central reason for their decision to target her. See Castro, 597 F.3d at 106 (holding that to properly evaluate a claim of political opinion, IJ must give ʺcareful consideration of the broader political contextʺ). In fact, as the gang members attacked her the second time, one of them told her that because she would not ʺdo this with him in a good way, it was going to happen in a bad way,ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 186, which suggests that the gang members wanted to punish her because they believed she was taking a stand against the pervasive norm of sexual subordination.
We note that the Fourth Circuit recently granted a petition for review in a case involving a woman in Honduras who was threatened by a gang in similar circumstances. The Fourth Circuit concluded that if, as the petitioner alleged, the gang had imputed to her ʺan anti‐gang political opinion, then that imputed opinion would be a central reason for likely persecution if she were returned to Honduras.ʺ See Alvarez Lagos, 927 F.3d at 251. The court held that the IJ erred by not considering the imputed political opinion claim, that is,
‐24‐
whether the gang believed that the petitioner held an anti‐gang political opinion. Id. at 254. Likewise, here, the agency did not adequately consider Hernandez‐ Chaconʹs imputed political opinion claim.
Accordingly, we hold that the agency erred in failing to adequately consider Hernandez‐Chaconʹs claim of persecution or fear of persecution based on actual or imputed political opinion.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition is GRANTED with respect to Hernandez‐Chaconʹs political opinion claim and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
*******************************
Heather Axford Senior Staff Attorney Central American Legal Assistance Brooklyn, NY
To state the obvious:
Many more women from El Salvador should be getting mandatory relief under CAT based on “torture with government acquiescence,” regardless of “nexus” which is not a requirement in CAT cases. Indeed, in a properly functioning and fair system these could probably be “blanket grants” provided the accounts are credible and documented (or they could be the basis for a TPS program for women fleeing the Northern Triangle, thus reducing the burden on the Immigraton Courts);
Compare the accurate account of the horrible conditions facing women inEl Salvador set forth by the Immigration Judge and the Second Circuit in this case with the fraudulent and largely fictionalized account presented by unethical Attorney General Sessions in his Matter of A-B– atrocity. Here are some excerpts from Judge Chin’s opinion which shows the real horrors that women face in El Salvador as opposed to he largely fictionalized version fabricated by Sessions:
In her decision, the IJ reviewed relevant country conditions in El Salvador, including the prevalence of violence against women and ʺthe dreadful
‐9‐
practice of El Salvadorʹs justice system to favor aggressors and assassins and to punish victims of gender violence.ʺ Id. at 147. The IJ relied on the declaration of Aracely Bautista Bayona, a lawyer and human rights specialist, who described ʺthe plight of women in El Salvador,ʺ id.,3 and recounted the following:
One of ʺthe most entrenched characteristics of Salvadoran society is machismo, a system of patriarchal gender biases which subject women to the will of men. Salvadorans are taught from early childhood that women are subordinate.ʺ Id. Salvadoran society ʺaccepts and tolerates men who violently punish women for violating these gender rules or disobeying male relatives.ʺ Id. Indeed, in El Salvador, ʺfemicide remain[s] widespread.ʺ Id. at 148; see also U.S. Depʹt of State, Bureau of Democracy, H. R. and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015 for El Salvador (2015) (ʺCountry Reportʺ). Gangs in El Salvador view women as the property of men, and gang violence against women outside the gang ʺmanifest[s] itself in a brutality that reflects these extreme machismo attitudes.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 148.
3
The IJ noted that Bayona had ʺfor more than two and a half decades worked and advocated for the rights of women, children, adolescents and youth in the migrant population in El Salvador.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 138.
‐10‐
ʺEl Salvador has the highest rate in the world [of femicide] with an average of 12 murders for every 100,000 women.ʺ Id. at 148‐49. As an article on El Salvadorʹs gangs concluded, ʺin a country terrorized by gangsters, it is left to the dead to break the silence on sexual violence . . . , to the bodies of dead women and girls pulled from clandestine graves, raped, battered and sometimes cut to pieces. They attest to the sadistic abuse committed by members of street gangs.ʺ Id. at 149 (quoting El Salvadorʹs Gangs Target Women and Girls, Associated Press, Nov. 6, 2014).
As the State Department has found, rape, sexual crimes, and violence against women are significantly underreported because of societal and cultural pressures on victims and fear of reprisal, and the laws against rape ʺare not effectively enforced.ʺ Country Report at 7. Police corruption in El Salvador is well‐documented, including involvement in extra‐judicial killings and human rights abuses. See id. at 1. The judicial system is also corrupt. While the law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, ʺthe government d[oes] not implement the law effectively, and . . . officials, particularly in the judicial system, often engage[] in corrupt practices with impunity.ʺ Id. at 6. ʺLike Salvadoran society as a whole, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges
‐11‐
discriminate against women, reduce the priority of womenʹs claims, and otherwise prevent women from accessing legal protections and justice. This results in impunity for aggressors, which reinforces aggressorsʹ perception that they can inflict violence without interference or reprisal.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 300‐ 01.
The IJ observed that Hernandez‐Chaconʹs experiences were ʺgenerally consistent with the background materials she has submitted in regards to pervasive brutal attacks by El Salvadoran gangs.ʺ Id. at 149‐50.
. . . .
There is ample evidence in the record to support her claim [of political; persecution].6 Gangs control much of El Salvador, including the neighborhood in which Hernandez‐ Chacon lived. The law enforcement systems that would normally protect women ‐‐ police, prosecutors, judges, officials ‐‐ do not have the resources or desire to address the brutal treatment of women, and the Salvadoran justice system ʺfavors aggressors and assassinsʺ and ʺpunish[es] victims of gender violence.ʺ Cert. Adm. Rec. at 147. Yet, Hernandez‐Chacon testified that when the first gang member tried to rape her, she resisted ʺbecause [she had] every right to.ʺ Id. at 193. Three days later, when the same man and two other gang members attacked her, she again resisted, to the point where they beat her until she lost consciousness. She argues that the men targeted her for the second attack ‐‐ and beat her so brutally ‐‐ because she had resisted the advances of an MS gang member and they believed she needed to be punished for her act of defiance. Her now husband likewise stated in his affidavit that Hernandez‐ Chacon will be attacked if she returns to El Salvador because ʺ[s]he has managed to fight them off twice, but that just makes them angrier and if she shows her face again, I think they could kill her.ʺ Id. at 269.
At oral argument, the government forthrightly conceded that it was a ʺpermissibleʺ inference that Hernandez‐Chacon was persecuted for her feminist political ideology, though it argued that the record did not compel that result.
Here are some additional thoughts about the larger problem exposed by this case:
WHY “NIBBLING AROUND THE EDGES” BY ARTICLE IIIs WON’T SOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS DISASTERS IN OUR IMMIGRATION COURTS NOR WILL IT RELIEVE THE ARTICLE IIIs FROM RESPONSIBILITY
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Exclusive for Courtside
Jan. 29, 2020
The Second Circuit’s decision in Hernández-Chacon v. Barr exposes deep fundamental constitutional flaws in our Immigration Court system. While the instructive language on how many women resisting gangs could and should be qualifying for asylum (and many more should be getting relief under the CAT) is refreshing, the remedy, a remand to a failed and constitutionally defective system, is woefully inadequate.
Indeed, just recently, a fellow Circuit, the Seventh, ripped the BIA for contemptuously disobeying a direct court order. Maybe the Board will pay attention to the Second Circuit’s directive in this case, maybe they won’t. Maybe they will think of a new reason to deny as all too often happens on Circuit Court remands these days.
I actually have no doubt that the Immigration Judge involved in this case, who recognized the dire situation of women in El Salvador, and grated CAT withholding, will “do the right thing” and grant asylum with the benefit of Judge Chin’s opinion. But, today’s BIA has a number of dedicated “asylum deniers” in its ranks; individuals who as Immigration Judges denied approaching 100% of the asylum claims coming before them, some of them notorious with the private bar for particular hostility to claims from women from the Northern Triangle.
That appeared to be their “selling point” for AG Billy Barr in elevating them to the BIA: Create the same reliable “Asylum Free Zone” at the BIA that has been created by these judges and others like them in other parts of the country. It’s a great way to discourage bona fide asylum claims, which. appears to be the key to the “Barr plan.”
One might ask what Billy Barr is doing running something purporting to be a “court system” in the first place. Outrageous on its face! The short answer: Article III complicity and dereliction of Constitutional duty! But, I’ll get to that later.
What if a panel of “Three Deniers” gets the case on remand? Will Ms Hernandez-Chacon finally get justice? Or, will she and her pro bono lawyer Heather Axford once again have to appeal to the Second Circuit just to force the BIA to finally “get the basics right?”
Individual case remands, even published ones, fail to address the serious underlying issues plaguing our Immigration Courts and threatening the very foundations of our justice system:1) lack of fundamental knowledge of asylum law on the part of the BIA and the Immigration Courts; 2) an unconstitutional system run, and sometimes staffed, by biased, unethical anti-asylum zealots who consistently send out false or misleading messages; and 3) the inherent unfairness in a system that denies adequate access to counsel and permits the use of coercive detention and outright statutory and constitutional abrogation to consistently harm asylum seekers and others seeking justice.
I. Glaring Lack Of Asylum Legal Competence & Expertise
The Second Circuit noted three major errors in the BIA’s analysis: 1) failing to recognize that the respondent was advancing a “political persecution” argument; 2) misuseof the concept of “victimization” as a pretext for denying a potentially valid asylum claim; and 3) failure to recognize and address the respondent’s “imputed political opinion.”
None of these mistakes is new. Advocates would tell you that the BIA and Immigration Judges make them all the time.
Nor is getting these things right “rocket science.” Really, all it would take is a body knowledgeable in and committed to the fair and generous interpretation of asylum law intended by the 1951 Convention from which our law stems and reinforced by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca in 1987. The correct view has also been reflected in the Second Circuit’s own published jurisprudence, which the Board again ignored in this case.
For example, the Second Circuit instructed the BIA “that that the analysis of what constitutes political expression for these purposes ʺinvolves a ʹcomplex and contextual factual inquiryʹ into the nature of the asylum applicantʹs activities in relation to the political context in which the dispute took place.ʺ Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548).”
This is hardly a new concept. For example, Yueqing Zhang was published in 2005, a decade and a half ago, and reinforced by the Second Circuit on several occasions since then. Yet, both the BIA and Immigration Judges continue to ignore it when it suits their purposes. So, why would the Second Circuit believe that the Immigration Courts had suddenly “gotten religion” and would now pay attention to their admonitions on asylum law?
As pointed out by the Second Circuit, the “mere victim” rationale, often insidiously used by the BIA and some Immigration Judges as an “easy handle” to summarily deny asylum claims, is a disingenuous hoax. All successful asylum applicants are “victims” even if not all “victims” necessarily qualify for asylum. Refugees, entitled to asylum, are a very large subset of “victims.” In this and many other cases, the BIA totally “blew by” the well established, statutorily required “mixed motive” analysis that is “Asylum Law 101.”
Also, the BIA’s failure to recognize and consider the well-established doctrine of “imputed political opinion” is inexcusable in a supposedly “expert” tribunal.
The “Article III blowoff” documented in this case is virtually inevitable in a system where the “judges” at all levels, are subject to arbitrary, unethical, and unconstitutional “performance quotas” and receive “performance evaluations” influenced by biased political officials with an interest in the outcome of cases. Indeed, former Attorney Session essentially told “his” judges that it’s “all about production.” Fairness, Due Process, and scholarship that individuals are entitled to before a tribunal simply don’t enter into the equation.
The Immigration Judge in this case has an outstanding reputation and actually did a careful job in many respects. A competent appellate tribunal would have caught the judge’s mistake on political opinion and remanded for further consideration. The case never should have reached the Second Circuit (think efficiency and why the Immigraton Courts have built unmanageable backlogs).
Moreover, an error like this by a competent and careful judge indicates the need for further positive guidance to judges on recognizing valid asylum claims. Why hasn’t the BIA published precedents reinforcing the very points made by Judge Chin in his Hernández-Chacon opinion and showing how they apply to granting asylum in real life, recurring situations, particularly those involving women from the Northern Triangle?
Instead, and in direct contradiction of the law and controlling jurisprudence, Attorney General Sessions in Matter of A-B- gave an unethical, misogynistic, and intentionally factually distorted suggestion that most women’s claims arising from persecution at the hands of gangs and abusive partners in the Northern Triangle should be “denied” on any available ground, whether warranted or not. Some Immigration Judges have correctly viewed this as “mere dicta.” But, others have viewed it as a potentially “career enhancing tip” about how “the big boss” wanted asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle treated: like dirt, or worse.
Dehumanization has always been a “key part of the plan” for Sessions, his acolyte Stephen Miller, and others of like mind in this Administration. Why have the Article III courts enabled, and in some cases approved, this neo-fascist approach to the law and humanity? That’s a great question to which the answer is not obvious. What’s the purpose of life tenure in office if it doesn’t promote courage to stand up for the rights of vulnerable individuals against invidious intentional Government tyranny ands systemic abuses?
By ignoring the “pattern or practice” of failure by the BIA and the Immigration Courts to institutionalize the Second Circuit’s many years of prior commands for fair asylum adjudication, while ignoring the glaring, intentional barriers to fair judicial performance put in place by the political controllers of this system, the Second Circuit and the other Article IIIs simply advertise their own fecklessness and also, to some extent, intellectual dishonesty.
II. Institutional Bias Against Asylum Seekers
Both Attorney General Barr and his predecessor Jeff Sessions are biased “cheerleaders” for DHS enforcement; they are totally unqualified to act in a quasi-judicial capacity or to supervise quasi-judicial adjudicators. Their participation in and interference with fair and impartial decision making is a clear violation of Due Process and a mockery of judicial and legal ethics.
A private lawyer who so blatantly “thumbed his or her nose” at prohibitions on conflicts of interest undoubtedly would face discipline or disbarment. Yet, the Second Circuit and their fellow Circuits, as well as the Supremes, have failed to act on these obvious ethical improprieties by the DOJ and its leadership that have a direct negative impact on constitutional Due Process.
Under Trump, Attorneys General have issued number of anti-asylum “precedents” reversing prior law and practice. New Immigration Judges are selected by the Attorney General almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and other Government attorneys. Those with private sector experience or experience representing migrants and asylum seekers are systematically excluded from the judiciary. How is this a fair system?
The Administration and DOJ spew forth an endless stream of anti-immigrant and anti-asylum, propaganda. They also use “performance work plans”and “numerical quotas” to drum into “judges” their responsibility to follow and implement “agency policies” rather than fairly and impartially consider the cases coming before them. This message certainly does not encourage fair and impartial adjudication. The “default message” clearly is “deny, deny, deny.”
One very fundamental problem resulting from this institutional bias against asylum seekers: The BIA’s (and now AG’s) “precedents” providing guidance to Immigration Judges fail to set forth rules and circumstances for granting asylum in meritorious cases. The need for such rules should be obvious from the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (directing the BIA to implement a generous interpretation of “well-founded fear” standard for asylum) and the BIA’s initial response to Cardoza in Matter of Mogharrabi (directing that asylum could be granted even where the objective chance of persecution is “significantly less than . . . probable”). Most, if not all, Circuit Courts of Appeals followed suit with a series of decisions criticizing the BIA for an “overly restrictive reading” of asylum law, not true to Cardoza and their own precedent in Mogharrabi, in many unpublished cases.
But, quite intentionally in my view, the BIA and Attorney General have now strayed far from these judicial admonitions and abandoned the BIA’s own precedent in Mogharrabi. Instead, today’s administrative “precedents” read like a “how to course” in denying asylum claims. Indeed, from examining these one-sided precedents (no individual has prevailed in an “Attorney General precedent” under this Administration — DHS wins every time), one comes away with the pronounced view that asylum could almost never be granted by an Immigration Judge, no matter how great the harm or compelling the circumstances.
I once participated in an academic conference attended by Circuit Court of Appeals Judges from across the country. Most were astounded to learn how many asylum cases were actually granted by Immigration Judges. From their review of unfailingly negative BIA decisions (skewed, of course, by the Government’s inability to appeal from the BIA, another problem with the current system) they had the impression that asylum was denied nearly 100% of the time (which actually does happen in some Immigration Courts these days, as noted above).
The only way to describe this is “gross institutional corruption” starting at the top with the DOJ and the Attorney General. Even now, under these intentionally restrictive rules, more than 30% of asylum cases are granted at merits hearings before Immigration Judges, although with the lack of effective positive guidance from the BIA those rates are highly inconsistent among judges.
Within the last decade, the majority of cases were actually being granted as the system was slowly progressing toward toward realizing the “spirit of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” However, that progress intentionally was reversed by improper political pressure to deny more Central American cases (a message that actually began under the last Administration and has been “put on steroids” by the current Administration).
III. An Inherently Unfair System
Notwithstanding the need for careful record building and detailed fact-finding as described by the Second Circuit, individuals are not entitled to appointed counsel in Immigraton Court. Through use of intentionally coercive and inhumane detention and “gimmicks” like “Remain in Mexico” the Administration strives to deny fair access to pro bono counsel and to prevent individuals from preparing and documenting complex cases.
The Article IIIs recognize the complexity of asylum cases, yet fail to “connect the dots” with the intentional systemic impediments to fair preparation and presentation thrown up by the government. The “hostile environment” for aliens and their counsel intentionally created in Immigration Court by the DOJ also works to discourage individuals from pursuing claims and getting representation.
The whole system is essentially a judicially-enabled farce. Does the Second Circuit, or anybody else, seriously think that Ms. Hernandez-Chacon would have gotten this far without the time-consuming and outstanding assistance of her pro bono lawyer, Heather Axford, of Central American Legal Assistance in Brooklyn, NY? She’s one of the top asylum litigators in the nation who used to appear before me in Arlington at the beginning of her amazing career!
How many of those “detained in the middle of nowhere,” told to “Remain in Mexico,” or, worse yet, orbited to “failed states” by Border Agents under bogus “Safe Third Country Agreements” have access to someone like Heather Axford? (It doesn’t take much imagination after reading the truth about how women are treated in El Salvador to see the outright fraud committed by the Trump Administration in entering into bogus “Safe Third Country” agreements with El Salvador and other dangerous, failing states). About none! How can the courts allow a system to keep out grinding out systemic abuse to vulnerable human beings without insisting that the essentials for fair hearings be put in place and maintained?
IV.Conclusion
When obvious legal, analytical, and institutional problems remain unfixed more than a decade after they surfaced, the system is broken! The current Immigration Court system is patently unfair and unconstitutional. By ignoring the glaring systemic unfairness, Article III Courts become part of the problem and subject themselves to charges of fecklessness and dereliction of duty.
It’s long past time for theArticle IIIs to take decisive actions to end the national disgrace and humanitarian disaster unfolding in our Immigration Courts daily. History is watching your actions and will be your judge!
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is comprised of former immigration judges who are dedicated to due process in the immigration system. As former immigration judges, we understand the inherent limitations on due process in an immigration court system that is housed in the Department of Justice, a prosecutorial agency within the Executive Branch of the government. This administration has systematically attacked due process in the immigration court system through new rules, memoranda, and policies. However, the largest assault to due process is the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program. MPP prevents access to the court, to counsel, and to resources refugees need to effectively present their cases. The limitations on due process in MPP are not incidental to the program, they are intentional.
In addition to the elimination of due process in MPP, the government is putting vulnerable refugees in grave danger. Refugees are forced to wait in dangerous border towns in Mexico without any protection or resources. As with the elimination of due process, the state created danger generated by MPP is intentional. It is part of the government’s attempt to eliminate access to asylum.
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges calls for the elimination of MPP immediately, demands that the administration take efforts to locate the thousands of individuals who were prevented from appearing at their hearings, and that all in absentia removal orders in MPP cases be rescinded sua sponte.
******************
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
Thanks to our Round Table colleague Hon. Ilyce Shugall for taking the lead on this effort.
Senate chaplain Barry Black began Wednesday’s session of President Trump’s impeachment trial by praying for God to give senators “civility built upon integrity.”
It was too much to ask.
Just minutes into the session, as lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) presented his opening argument for removing the president, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) displayed on his desk a hand-lettered message with big block letters pleading: “S.O.S.”
In case that was too subtle, he followed this later with another handwritten message pretending he was an abducted child:
“THESE R NOT MY PARENTS!”
“PLEASE HELP ME!”
Paul wrote “IRONY ALERT” on another scrap of paper, and scribbled there an ironic thought. Nearby, a torn piece of paper concealed a crossword puzzle, which Paul set about completing while Schiff spoke. Eventually, even this proved insufficient amusement, and Paul, though required to be at his desk, left the trial entirely for a long block of time.
No one expected senators truly to honor their oath to be impartial. But Paul and some of his Republican colleagues aren’t even pretending to treat the proceedings with dignity.
Minutes before the trial opened in earnest on Wednesday, Paul took Trump up on the president’s stated wish to watch the trial from the “front row.” Paul tweeted a photo of a gallery ticket and said, “Mr. President, would love to have you as my guest during this partisan charade.”
Trump retweeted the message. (Unlike during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, gallery tickets make no mention of an impeachment trial.)
Some of Paul’s Republican Senate colleagues were only slightly better behaved as the House managers presented the evidence.
Opinion | Trump’s impeachment defense could create a dangerous precedent
President Trump doesn’t have to commit a crime to be impeached, says constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. (Joy Sharon Yi, Kate Woodsome, Jonathan Turley/The Washington Post)
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Joni Ernst (Iowa) read press clippings. (Blackburn had talking points on her desk attacking the whistleblower.) Sessions begin with an admonition that “all persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment,” but Ernst promptly struck up a conversation with Dan Sullivan (Alaska), who talked with Ron Johnson (Wis.). Steve Daines (Mont.) walked over to have a word with Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Tim Scott (S.C.), who flashed a thumbs-up.
Lindsey Graham (S.C.) variously shook his head in disagreement with the managers, picked his teeth and yawned. Tom Cotton (Ark.) ordered up a glass of milk, then another, then unwrapped a chocolate bar to share with Ernst. An aisle over, James Risch (Idaho), who fell asleep during Tuesday’s session, talked loudly enough to be heard in the press gallery.
“Mr. Chief Justice, I do see a lot of members moving and taking a break,” said House impeachment manager Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who was trying to speak. “Would you like to take a break?”
“I think we can continue,” replied Chief Justice John Roberts, who had been perusing printouts of emails.
In fairness, the proceedings were lengthy, and tedious. When Schiff, after two hours, uttered the phrase “now let me turn to the second article,” the press gallery erupted in groans. Democrats appeared restless, too; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) slouched low in his chair, head resting on chest, forehead in hand.
Some might have nodded off entirely but for Rives Miller Grogan, a conservative activist who burst into the chamber at 6 p.m. and screamed “Jesus Christ!” before police shoved him out. Grogan’s continued screaming — something about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) being the devil — could be heard in the chamber, where senators, jolted to alertness, shared a bipartisan chuckle.
Roberts only once rebuked the behavior in the chamber. As Tuesday’s session bled into the early hours of Wednesday, impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) warned senators against making a “treacherous vote” for a “coverup.” White House counsel Pat Cipollone, a member of Trump’s defense team, said Nadler “should be embarrassed” and called on the Senate to “land this power trip.”
Roberts, admonishing both sides “to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” cited the lofty example of a 1905 impeachment trial when use of the word “pettifogging” — defined as the bickering over trivialities — was disallowed as too pejorative.
Now, the world’s greatest deliberative body has devolved into a palace of pettifoggery.
Nadler was in the penalty box. When a reporter asked a question of Nadler at a news conference Wednesday morning, Schiff interrupted: “I’m going to respond to the questions.” Later, on the floor, a contrite Nadler thanked senators for “your temperate listening and patience last night.”
Patience, however, was in short supply as Schiff and his team made their case. Ignoring the impeachment managers, and the silence requirement, Graham chatted with Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.). Sen. John Boozman (Ark.) had a word with Sen. John Hoeven (N.D.), while Sen. David Perdue (Ga.) talked with Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.). And on, and on.
Reading from Federalist 65, Schiff quoted Alexander Hamilton: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified” to conduct an impeachment trial with “the necessary impartiality”?
Clearly, Hamilton couldn’t have imagined this Senate. S.O.S.!
*********************
And, today, Milbank royally “nailed” the anti-democratic death spiral of American institutions that J.R. and his GOP colleagues have helped create.
John Roberts comes face to face with the mess he made
Add to list
In an image taken from video, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. presides over the impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday in the Senate chamber. (Senate TV via AP)
There is justice in John Roberts being forced to preside silently over the impeachment trial of President Trump, hour after hour, day after tedious day.
The chief justice of the United States, as presiding officer, doesn’t speak often, and when he does the words are usually scripted and perfunctory:
“The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.”
“The chaplain will lead us in prayer.”
“The sergeant at arms will deliver the proclamation.”
Otherwise, he sits and watches. He rests his chin in his hand. He stares straight ahead. He sits back and interlocks his fingers. He plays with his pen. He takes his reading glasses off and puts them on again. He starts to write something, then puts his pen back down. He roots around in his briefcase for something — anything? — to occupy him.
Roberts’s captivity is entirely fitting: He is forced to witness, with his own eyes, the mess he and his colleagues on the Supreme Court have made of the U.S. political system. As representatives of all three branches of government attend this unhappy family reunion, the living consequences of the Roberts Court’s decisions, and their corrosive effect on democracy, are plain to see.
Ten years to the day before Trump’s impeachment trial began, the Supreme Court released its Citizens Uniteddecision, plunging the country into the era of super PACsand unlimited, unregulated, secret campaign money from billionaires and foreign interests. Citizens United, and the resulting rise of the super PAC, led directly to this impeachment. The two Rudy Giuliani associates engaged in key abuses — the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the attempts to force Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents — gained access to Trump by funneling money from a Ukrainian oligarch to the president’s super PAC.
Opinion | The chief justice presides over impeachment, but don’t expect a lot from him
Columnist Ruth Marcus explains what the chief justice may or may not do in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. (Video: Danielle Kunitz, Joy Sharon Yi, Kate Woodsome/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
The consequences? Falling confidence in government, and a growing perception that Washington had become a “swamp” corrupted by political money, fueled Trump’s victory. The Republican Party, weakened by the new dominance of outside money, couldn’t stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party or the takeover of the congressional GOP ranks by far-right candidates. The new dominance of ideologically extreme outside groups and donors led lawmakers on both sides to give their patrons what they wanted: conflict over collaboration and purity at the cost of paralysis. The various decisions also suppress the influence of poorer and non-white Americans and extend the electoral power of Republicans in disproportion to the popular vote.
Certainly, the Supreme Court didn’t create all these problems, but its rulings have worsened the pathologies — uncompromising views, mindless partisanship and vitriol — visible in this impeachment trial. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), no doubt recognizing that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is helping to preserve his party’s Senate majority, has devoted much of his career to extending conservatives’ advantage in the judiciary.
He effectively stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing for nearly a year to consider President Barack Obama’s eminently qualified nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill a vacancy. And, expanding on earlier transgressions by Democrats, he blew up generations of Senate procedures and precedents requiring the body to operate by consensus so that he could confirm more Trump judicial appointees.
It’s a symbiotic relationship. On the day the impeachment trial opened, the Roberts Court rejected a plea by Democrats to expedite its consideration of the latest legal attempt by Republicans to kill Obamacare. The court sided with Republicans who opposed an immediate Supreme Court review because the GOP feared the ruling could hurt it if the decision came before the 2020 election.
Roberts had been warned about this sort of thing. The late Justice John Paul Stevens, in his Citizens Uniteddissent, wrote: “Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.”
Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke.
*******************************
Profiles in Fecklessness
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Exclusive for Courtside
Jan. 24, 2020
“World’s Greatest Deliberative Body,” indeed! It’s the GOP Clown
Show with the complicit Chiefie presiding.
Milbank doesn’t even get to the absolute unconstitutional carnage and unending human misery the “Roberts Court” has created with its complicity in the Trump regime’s White Nationalist immigration agenda: a religiously-biased “Travel Ban” — fine with us; bogus invocation of “national emergencies” to illegally misappropriate money for a wall and otherwise dump on migrants’ rights — “no problema;” unconstitutional, unnecessary, and inhumane “civil” detention — no need to rush to judgment; illegal rewriting of asylum laws by Executive fiat — “right on;” disenfranchisement of African-American and Hispanic voters — not our problem; unwarranted shooting of an unarmed Mexican teenager by U.S. agent — tough luck, kid, your life is worthless to us; lawless and irrational termination of DACA — let’s let the kids twist in the wind for awhile; lies and pretexts for a racially motivated attempt to undercount people of color in the census — “tisk, tisk, naughty to lie to courts” (but, others among J.R.’s GOP judicial stooges where anxious to sweep the whole thing under the rug), disingenuous pleas by the Solicitor General to short-circuit the normal Federal Court litigation rules for the benefit of the regime — bring it on, and on an on.
Every day, the Trump regime conducts itself with disregard for the law and contempt for Federal Courts. The nation’s largest and, in many ways, most important Federal “court” system — the U.S. Immigration Court — isn’t a “court” at all, within any normal understanding of the word. Its structure and operation is blatantly unconstitutional — dissing the Due Process requirement for fair and impartial quasi-judicial adjudicators for “enforcement agents in robes” beholden to Chief Trump Toady Billy Barr, and, through him, to DHS Enforcement. J.R. and his “Complicit Five” are above it all.
The only human lives and rights for which the Supremes’ majority evinces any particular concern are the lives of the unborn and the rights of citizens to assault each other with high-power weapons. Only corporations appear to have rights worth protecting under J.R.’s skewed view of America. What’s wrong with this twisted and nonsensical picture of our once-proud legal system?
The only good news: America will have a chance (perhaps out last clear one) to vote at least some of the GOP clowns out of office in November!
Of course, J.R. and his GOP robed sell-outs are immune from accountability and far above the daily unfolding of the unconscionable legal, moral, and human disasters and tragedies they have countenanced and enabled. But, they are not immune from the judgment of history!
The Constitution requires the Chiefie to preside over the rest of the GOP Clown Show and “validate” the pre-announced violation of their oaths as openly biased jurors like Graham, McConnell, Paul, Cruz, and the other GOP Trump toadies have already flaunted in J.R.’s face.
Respect has to be earned. Unless and until the Chiefie starts enforcing the law, upholding Due Process in the face of Trump’s scofflaw behavior, and saving a few lives of the most vulnerable among us, J.R. will see a continued deterioration of his reputation and a harsh historical judgment of his complicity in the face of anti-American tyranny.
As MLK, Jr., once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I’m sure that J.R., student of history that he is, has read that quote; but, tragically, it seems to have gone in one ear and out the other! You don’t have to look very far or be #1 in your class at Harvard Law to see the Constitutional mockery and grotesque injustices, not to mention rudeness and inhumanity, taking place in our Immigration Courts, at our borders, and in our overall immigration system every day!
Time to wake up, get involved, and end the Clown Show, Chiefie! That’s what life-tenure is supposed to be about! That’s what courageous and exemplary historical legacies are built upon!
Due Process Forever; Feckless & Complicit Courts, Never!
Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans Increase in Immigration Court Backlog
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The fastest growing segments of the Immigration Court backlog are now Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. Between September 2018, when fiscal year 2018 drew to a close, and December 2019, Cubans in the backlog increased by 374 percent, Venezuela increased by 277 percent, and Nicaraguans increased by 190 percent. These rates of increase stand out when compared to the overall growth of 42 percent across all nationalities during this same period.
Despite the many actions by the Trump Administration designed to stem the growth in the Immigration Court backlog, the court’s backlog continues to climb. In just the three-month period from October through December 2019 the backlog has grown by 65,929 new cases. The court ended December 2019 with 1,089,696 in its active backlog.
To put this recent 65,929-case growth in the backlog in perspective, assuming the pace of new filings continues at the existing rate and each judge met their administration-imposed quota of closing 700 cases a year, it would still require the court to hire almost 400 new judges – while stemming resignations and retirements among current judges – to stop the backlog from growing further. And a much larger round of judge hirings than this would be required in order to begin to reduce the backlog.
https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/Additional free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through December 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:
https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:
https://facebook.com/tracreportsTRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The awful, unconstitutional mess in our Immigration Courts is a direct result of the regime’s “malicious incompetence” leading to round after round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”). Contrary to the regime’s false narratives and distortions these backlogs are NOT primarily the result of either a) systematic use of dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys, or b) lack of work ethic on the part of Immigration Judges and court staff.
Those of us “in my age group” can remember when a concerted attack on those fleeing from Communist countries or other leftist dictatorships would have earned more immediate “pushback” from the GOP both from Congress and from those within GOP Administrations.
Indeed, the Reagan Administration famously just stopped enforcing deportation orders against Nicaraguans in South Florida, even if they had been denied asylum, without ever announcing a formal policy of “deferred action.” This eventually led to creation of “Temporary Protected Status” by Congress and the “Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act” (“NACARA”) to grant lawful permanent resident status to nationals of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as well as some former Soviet-Bloc nationals who were in the U.S. without status.
As a former Immigraton Judge who saw the many positive effects of NACARA, it was one of the “smartest ever” bipartisan immigration programs enacted by Congress. It gave many deserving and hard-working families a chance to become permanent residents and eventually citizens. At the same time, it was easy to administer — so easy in fact that many asylum cases could be sent from the the Immigration Courts to the Asylum Offices for adjudication under NACARA, thereby freeing time and space on overcrowded court dockets. Moreover, the NACARA program was self-supporting, being financed from the filing fees charged by USCIS.
Basically, it was a win-win for everyone.
Similarly, the Bush I Administration declined to deport Chinese resistors to the “one-child” policy even where they had been denied asylum under the standards then in effect. This eventually led to a bipartisan amendment to the “refugee” definition to include those opposed to “coercive population control.”
A wiser Administration would draw on the many favorable lessons learned from TPS and NACARA to propose a large-scale legalization program to Congress. In the meantime, those with long residence and no serious crimes could be taken off Immigration Court dockets and granted work authorization pending Congressional action.
With dockets thus cleared of those with substantial equities whose removal actuallywould harm our national interests, the Immigration Courts could once again begin working “in the present tense” on cases of more recent arrivals who have not yet established equities. And it wouldn’t take another 400 Immigration Judges to put non-detained cases on a more reasonable and achievable 6-18 month completion schedule.
As it is, unless and until the Article III courts do their constitutional duty, or we have regime change and an independent Article I Immigration Court, the backlogs and injustices will continue to grow.
It was a 25-year-old Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday is celebrated on Monday, who stood in the pulpit of Detroit’s Second Baptist Church on Feb. 28, 1954. The Montgomery bus boycott, which would launch the future leader of the American civil rights movement to national prominence, was nearly two years away.
King roused the Second Baptist congregation that Sunday morning with a sermon that did not once mention race. Discrimination, segregation, protest demonstrations — these were not on his agenda. The young preacher went deeper, if such a thing was possible during an era of racial turmoil.
King got the congregation thinking about values, a subject as relevant today as it was in 1954.
King talked about lost values and the need for rediscovering them.
Something seemed fundamentally wrong in society, he preached. And it wasn’t because society didn’t know enough. Scientific progress was amazing. King said in 18th-century America, it took three days for a letter to go from New York City to Washington; in 1954, a person could go from Detroit to China in less time.
It’s even more astonishing today. Breakfast can be had in Washington, teatime enjoyed in London and a nightcap swallowed in New York City — all in the same day.
The trouble, he said, was not that we don’t know enough but that “we aren’t good enough.” Scientific genius, he said, has outpaced “our moral genius.” The greater danger facing the country in ’54, King noted, was not “the atomic bomb that was created by physical science” that could be dropped on the heads of thousands of people, but “that atomic bomb which lies in the hearts and souls of men, capable of exploding into the vilest of hate and into the most damaging selfishness.”
That thought calls to mind the more than three dozen countries in the world with unmanned, missile-armed drones capable of being launched from afar under remote control and striking and killing with precision. Think about what lies within the hearts and souls of leaders in countries such as North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Turkey and, yes, the United States.
King called attention to shaky moral foundations and the “relativistic ethic” that was being applied to right and wrong. He described it as an ethic that says “since everybody is doing it, it must be right” — an ethic that means “people can’t stand up for their . . . convictions, because the majority of people might not be doing it.” He said it’s “a sort of numerical interpretation of what’s right.”
King’s teaching got me to thinking about the 53 Senate Republicans who know that some things are right and some things are wrong, but adjust their attitudes relative to the behavior of President Trump.
King said he was at Second Baptist to say that some things are right and wrong, eternally and absolutely. “It’s wrong to hate,” he declared. “It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. It’s wrong in America, it’s wrong in Germany, it’s wrong in Russia, it’s wrong in China. It was wrong in 2000 B.C., and it’s wrong in 1954 A.D. It always has been wrong, and it always will be wrong!”
That got me thinking about White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller. How can a person who pushes white nationalism, invokes a 1924 American immigration law extolled by Adolf Hitler, is bigoted and racially intolerant — how can he end up in the White House?
Then I stopped to think about who put Miller where he is — President Trump. The same President Trump who recently retweeted to his 71 million followers a doctored photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wearing a hijab and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) with a turban on his head in front of an Iranian flag with a caption reading, “the corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah’s rescue.” Why wouldn’t an insulter of Islam and Muslims, who also inflicts cruelty at our southern border, want to have the likes of Stephen Miller at his side?
King’s sermon derided what he regarded as a pragmatic test applied to right and wrong: “If it works, it’s all right. Nothing is wrong but that which does not work. If you don’t get caught, it’s right.”
=Which made me think of Trump using the powers of his office to solicit a foreign government to help take down a domestic political opponent, lying about his successes and taking credit for things he didn’t do — all because it works. And his adoring believers eat it up.
King reminded the Second Baptist worshipers that “it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life.”
Which makes me visualize Trump basking at evangelical rallies and paying lip service to God, while paying actual service to himself.
Knowing right from wrong; honesty; justice. Basic values preached by Martin Luther King Jr. still need rediscovering in 2020.
BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., VANESSA WILLIAMS, DAN BALZ AND SCOTT CLEMENT
President Trump made a stark appeal to black Americans during the 2016 election when he asked, “What have you got to lose?” Three years later, black Americans have rendered their verdict on his presidency with a deeply pessimistic assessment of their place in the United States under a leader seen by an overwhelming majority as racist.
The findings come from a Washington Post-Ipsos poll of African Americans nationwide, which reveals fears about whether their children will have a fair shot to succeed and a belief that white Americans don’t fully appreciate the discrimination that black people experience.
While personally optimistic about their own lives, black Americans today offer a bleaker view about their community as a whole. They also express determination to try to limit Trump to a single term in office.
More than 8 in 10 black Americans say they believe Trump is a racist and that he has made racism a bigger problem in the country. Nine in 10 disapprove of his job performance overall.
The pessimism goes well beyond assessments of the president. A 65 percent majority of African Americans say it is a “bad time” to be a black person in America. That view is widely shared by clear majorities of black adults across income, generational and political lines. By contrast, 77 percent of black Americans say it is a “good time” to be a white person, with a wide majority saying white people don’t understand the discrimination faced by black Americans.
Courtney Tate, 40, an elementary school teacher in Irving, Tex., outside Dallas, said that since Trump was elected, he’s been having more conversations with his co-workers — discussions that are simultaneously enlightening and exhausting — about racial issues he and his students face everyday.
“As a black person, you’ve always seen all the racism, the microaggressions, but as white people they don’t understand this is how things are going for me,” said Tate, who said he is the only black male teacher in his school. “They don’t live those experiences. They don’t live in those neighborhoods. They moved out. It’s so easy to be white and oblivious in this country.”
Francine Cartwright, a 44-year-old mother of three from Moorestown, N.J., said the ascent of Trump has altered the way she thinks about the white people in her life.
“If I’m in a room with white women, I know that 50 percent of them voted for Trump and they believe in his ideas,” said Cartwright, a university researcher. “I look at them and think, ‘How do you see me? What is my humanity to you?’ ”
The president routinely talks about how a steadily growing economy and historically low unemployment have resulted in more African Americans with jobs and the lowest jobless rate for black Americans recorded. Months ago he said, “What I’ve done for African Americans in two-and-a-half years, no president has been able to do anything like it.”
But those factors have not translated positively for the president. A 77 percent majority of black Americans say Trump deserves “only some” or “hardly any” credit for the 5.5 percent unemployment rate among black adults compared with 20 percent who say Trump deserves significant credit.
In follow-up interviews, many said former president Barack Obama deserves more credit for the improvement in the unemployment rate, which declined from a high of 16.8 percent in 2010 to 7.5 percent when he left office.
Others said their personal financial situation is more a product of their own efforts than anything the president has done.
“I don’t think [Trump] has anything to do with unemployment among African Americans,” said Ethel Smith, a 72-year-old nanny who lives in Lithonia, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta. “I’ve always been a working poor person. That’s just who I am.”
Black Americans report little change in their personal financial situations in the past few years, with 19 percent saying it has been getting better and 26 percent saying it has been getting worse. Most, 54 percent, say their financial situation has stayed the same.
A similar 56 percent majority of African Americans rate the national economy as “not so good” or “poor,” contrasting with other surveys that find most Americans overall rate the economy positively, although there are sharp political divides on this question.
Beyond questions about the economy, African Americans see a range of concerns impacting the country overall as well as their own communities.
Just 16 percent of black Americans believe that most black children born in the U.S. today have “a good opportunity to achieve a comfortable standard of living.” A 75 percent majority think most white children have such an opportunity.
More than 8 in 10 say they do not trust police in the United States to treat people of all races equally, and 7 in 10 distrust police in their own community.
Black Americans also widely sense that their experiences with discrimination are underappreciated by white Americans. Just about 2 in 10 say that most white Americans understand the level of discrimination black Americans face in their lives, while nearly 8 in 10 say they do not.
The starkly negative outlook appears to be a turnabout from previous points during both the Obama and George W. Bush presidencies, according to surveys asking related questions. A 2011 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 73 percent of black women said it was a “good time” to be a black woman in America, while a similar survey in 2006 found 60 percent of black men saying it was a good time to be a black man.
Yet the Post-Ipsos poll also finds that 65 percent of black Americans say they feel optimistic about their own lives most or all of the time. This positive personal outlook crosses age and political groups, and while it peaks among those who are older and with higher incomes, roughly half of black Americans with incomes under $35,000 annually say they feel optimistic about their own lives.
Dana Clark, a father of 11 children in Ontario, Calif., said he tells all of his children that it’s possible to succeed in America, but that they’ll have to work harder than the white children they encounter.
“I tell them we’re going to set this plan up. Whatever you want to do you’re going to be able to do it,” he said. “But it ain’t going to be easy, especially if [you] want to make some money because you’re going to be in a world where they’re not going to expect you to be there. You can get what you want, but you’ve got to work harder, faster and stronger.”
The survey, by The Post and Ipsos, a nonpartisan research firm, is one of the most extensive recent surveys focused on views of the country and President Trump among black Americans, who are often represented by only small samples in customary national polls. It was conducted among 1,088 non-Hispanic black adults, including 900 registered voters, drawn from a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households.
Few black voters responded positively to Trump’s campaign appeal for their votes. Exit polls taken during the 2016 election showed just 8 percent of African Americans supported Trump and 89 percent backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although black turnout was significantly lower than in 2008 and 2012 for the election and reelection of Obama, the country’s first black president.
In the Post-Ipsos poll, roughly three-quarters of black adults say the things that Trump is doing as president are “bad for African Americans,” while a similar majority says Obama’s actions as president were good.
Kenneth Davis, a truck driver who lives outside Detroit, said that when Trump was elected, co-workers who secretly harbored racist thoughts felt emboldened to publicly express them.
“One gentleman is waving the Confederate flag on the back of his pickup truck,” said Davis, 48, who is a Marine Corps veteran. “He was very brave to say ‘Trump’s president, I’m going to get my window (painted).’ ”
Retired federal prison warden Keith Battle said the political climate has exposed “unresolved racial issues” and that Trump has emboldened white supremacists. Battle, who lives in Wake Forest, N.C., said white supremacists “are not the majority of whites in America, but there is a significant amount still, I’d say 30 percent, and I think they’re just leading the country down a path of, eventually, chaos. They’re feeling jeopardized of losing their white privilege.”
Survey respondents were asked to say how Trump’s presidency has affected them personally or African Americans in general. The responses illuminated the data in the poll.
“Donald Trump has not done anything for the African American people,” said one person.
“He has created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years,” said another.
A third said, “He has taken hatred against people of color, in general, from the closet to the front porch.”
Others echoed that sentiment, saying that the president has emboldened those with racially prejudiced views and therefore set back race relations for years. “I sense a separation between myself and some of my white associates,” one person wrote.
Trump’s overall approval rating among black Americans stands at 7 percent, with 90 percent disapproving, including 75 percent who disapprove “strongly.”
Similarly large majorities of black men and women disapprove of Trump, as do black Americans across different age, education and income levels. Trump receives somewhat higher marks among self-identified black conservatives, with 25 percent approving of his performance, compared with 5 percent of moderates and 3 percent among liberals.
Few black Americans appear open to supporting Trump’s bid for reelection at this point. He receives between 4 and 5 percent support among black registered voters in head-to-head matchups against eight potential Democratic nominees. But the level of Democratic support depends on who is the party’s nominee, peaking at 82 percent for former vice president Joe Biden and falling to 57 percent for former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg.
The Post-Ipsos survey was conducted Jan. 2-8, 2020, through Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points among the sample of 1,088 black adults overall, and four points among the sample of 900 registered voters.
Emily Guskin contributed to this report.
Cleve R. Wootson Jr. is a national political reporter for The Washington Post, covering the 2020 campaign for president. He previously worked on The Post’s General Assignment team. Before that, he was a reporter for the Charlotte Observer.
Vanessa Williams is a reporter on the National desk.
Dan Balz is chief correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as the paper’s deputy national editor, political editor, White House correspondent and Southwest correspondent.
Scott Clement is the polling director for The Washington Post, conducting national and local polls about politics, elections and social issues. He began his career with the ABC News Polling Unit and came to The Post in 2011 after conducting surveys with the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life
****************
Unfortunately, it’s painfully simple. The GOP is the “21st Century Party of Jim Crow.” Those of us who believe in the 14th Amendment, equal justice, and human decency had better hang together to remove Trump and as many of his GOP toadies as possible from office in 2020.
Otherwise, we’ll all be reliving one of the worst chapters in American history. And that will be tragic for future generations of Americans of all races.
Make America REALLY great by voting Trump and his White Nationalist kakistocracy out of office on every level of our political system. There are enough of us out there in the majority to get the job done this time — if we only hang together and get out the vote everywhere!
When It Comes to Immigration, Political Centrism is Useless
With Trump in office, things can seem absurdly bleak. But after Republicans lost the House, it became clear that Trump’s first two years were for nativists a critical opportunity to reshape the contours of the American demos. And they blew it: Republicans had total control of government yet legislative cuts to legal immigration went nowhere. Meanwhile, Democratic voters are moving sharply left in the face of accelerating Republican extremism. The percentage of Americans calling for a decrease in legal immigration has plummeted since the early 2000s—particularly but not exclusively among Democrats. Indeed, since 2006 Democratic voters have swung from a strong plurality supporting legal immigration cuts to a stronger plurality backing increased legal immigration.
In promoting attacks on “illegal immigration” and militarizing the border, establishment politicians from both major parties inflamed popular anti-immigrant sentiment. But they helped move the Overton window so far right that it snapped loose of its bipartisan frame, prompting vociferous resistance on the left. The war on “illegal immigrants” was based on a bipartisan consensus. It is becoming very partisan. That’s good.
As nativists well know, immigration means that we the people is increasingly made up of people who don’t look like Trump and his base. And they correctly worry that immigration is driving a large-scale demographic transformation that could ultimately doom the conservative movement—a prospect that the most honestly racist figures on the far-right call “white genocide.” Non-white people disproportionately vote Democrat—a trend gravely exacerbated by unconstrained Republican racism that has alienated even wealthy and economically conservative non-white people. Demographics aren’t destiny. But thanks to the foundational role that racism plays in American capitalism, they do mean quite a bit.
In August 2019, Trump finally implemented an aggressive attack on legal immigration, expanding the definition of what makes an immigrant “likely to become a public charge” and thus excludable from the country.28 The rule further empowers immigration officers to deny entry to poor and working-class immigrants, particularly from Latin America, or to deny immigrants already in the country a green card. The rule radically expands a provision of US immigration law dating back to the Immigration Act of 1882 and, before that, to New York and Massachusetts’s enforcement targeting Irish paupers. The Migration Policy Institute predicts that the rule “could cause a significant share of the nearly 23 million noncitizens and U.S. citizens in immigrant families using public benefits to disenroll.” And visa denials under Trump had already skyrocketed before the new rule was in place.
It is unclear how profoundly the rule will reshape either the size or the class, national, and racial makeup of legal immigration. But regardless, the new rule is a reflection of Trump’s inability to secure cuts or changes to legal immigration in Congress. The rule will very likely be rolled back under even a milquetoast Democratic president. The same holds true with Trump’s deep cuts to refugee admissions, and the draconian proposal pushed by some in his orbit to cut admissions to zero. Trump is effectively terrorizing migrants in the present but failing to secure the enduring legislative change that would outlast his presidency.
There is no majority constituency today for enacting such legislation—nor any viable institutional vehicle for it. Whatever opportunity existed to leverage a white-grievance-fueled presidency toward a full nativist program has faded even as the right clings to power thanks to the system’s profoundly anti-democratic features. The left is nowhere near winning. But it is at long last emerging as a real force in clear conflict with both the Trumpist right and the center that facilitated its rise.
For Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, and a host of other Democrats, a measure of nativism was useful. Quite a bit more than that has proven necessary for Republicans. But too much nativism is a problem: no rational capitalist favors shutting out exploitable migrant labor. As Karl Marx wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire, political stances that seem rooted in principle are in reality founded—if often in indirect, unconscious, and obscure ways—in “material conditions of existence.” This is no doubt the case here.
The United States has undergone decades of enforcement escalation, fashioning a useful scapegoat for neoliberalism and empire while maintaining a segmented labor market. But business frequently lost too, most spectacularly with the repeated defeat of comprehensive immigration reform. Business wants the undocumented to be legalized and guest workers who provide the benefits of undocumented labor without the risk. But what perhaps best reflects—but by no means exclusively reflects—the power of business is what hasn’t happened: deep legislative cuts to authorized immigration have been consistently off the table for more than two decades. This has been the case since the 1996 legislation to slash legal immigration was defeated in favor of a law to persecute undocumented immigrants and “criminal aliens.” The immigration debate has taken on a bizarre and contradictory life of its own. The unspeakability of cuts to authorized immigration, and the failure to impose effective employer sanctions and employment verification systems reveal that immigration policy was still tethered, narrowly but firmly, to the interests of capital. With Trump, full nativism is spoken. But substantial immigration reductions still cannot pass Congress.
A full examination of the complex role of business, the rich, and their various factions during the past two decades of immigration politics is yet to be written. Some of its basic contours, however, are clear. For one, the capitalist class has become recklessly polyphonic. Lumpen-billionaires like the Mercer family and the Koch brothers have spent vast amounts to promote their ideologically distinct priorities rather than those of the collective. The Tanton network is a case in point: it received more than $150 million since 2005 from the Colcom Foundation, founded by the late Mellon heir Cordelia Scaife May. Ironically, independent right-wing oligarchs who pursue idiosyncratic agendas now rival the Chamber of Commerce for influence thanks to the policy achievements of groups like the Chamber of Commerce, which helped those oligarchs make and keep their billions. But does establishment big business even care about immigration anymore?
Political scientist Margaret Peters argues that productivity gains and globalization’s facilitation of an overseas supply of low-wage labor has led to a lessening of business’s need for immigrant workers, resulting in more restriction. The evidence for this, however, is mixed. On the one hand, business has not won a major legislative expansion of immigration since 1990. But it has also not suffered a major defeat. What’s clear is that business can tolerate border security theatrics and the demonization of “criminal aliens,” and is content to exploit undocumented workers. As anthropologist Nicholas De Genova writes, “It is deportability, and not deportation per se, that has historically rendered undocumented migrant labor a distinctly disposable commodity.”34 Business opposes dramatic cuts to authorized immigration, effective employer sanctions, and mandatory employee verification. Business prefers legalization, but that doesn’t rival priorities like tax cuts and deregulation; if it did, business would abandon the Republican Party. The roles played in immigration politics by business interests with various and often bipartisan attachments require further research, which will in turn help to clarify the woefully under-studied sociology of ruling class power more generally.
Meanwhile, business’s hold on the Democratic Party has come under intense assault. The war on “illegal immigrants” that accelerated in the 1990s is facilitating a realignment of left-of-center politics in favor of a diverse, immigrant-inclusive working class in opposition to war, neoliberal oligarchy, and hard borders. The post–Cold War dominance of carceral neoliberalism had made such a popular coalition impossible; the exhaustion of that model signaled by the 2008 crisis has made it astonishingly credible. Record deportations and a radicalizing racist right triggered a revolt among the Democratic Party’s young and increasingly diverse base. That base has along with much of American public opinion moved to perhaps the most staunchly pro-immigrant position in American history—and, in doing so, toward a radically inclusive vision of the American working class. Amid a post-Recession boom in labor militancy, that portends trouble for the entire political establishment and the racist and oligarchic order it protects.
Trump’s election set that trajectory into overdrive, rendering opinions on immigration a basic proxy for one’s partisan allegiance. Border militarization that once garnered bipartisan support is now the polarizing Wall. Obama’s brutal migrant detention centers have under Trump been labeled “concentration camps.” The number of Republicans who believe that the United States risks losing its national identity if the country welcomes immigrants from the world over has increased since Trump’s election.35 At the same time, Democrats have become more hostile to enforcement. In 2010, 47 percent of Democrats said that they equally prioritized a pathway to legalizing undocumented immigrants and “better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws,” while just 29 percent prioritized a pathway to legalization alone. By 2018, the number prioritizing legalization alone skyrocketed to 51 percent. As the war on immigrants kicked into high gear in 1994, just 32 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans agreed that immigrants strengthened the country. By 2016, the share of Democrats who said so had surged to 78 percent.
Extreme polarization, the establishment’s bête noire, is in fact the only solution to the long-standing bipartisan agreement that immigration is a problem for enforcement to solve. Demanded and rejected, oppressed and expelled, this country’s many others have long insisted that the promise of American freedom, designed for if never truly delivered to white settlers, belongs to them too because they too are the people. And contrary to what Trump’s presidency might suggest, a growing number of Americans agree and are turning against nativism and war. Racism is, as the remarkable number of Americans embracing socialism understand, an obstacle to freeing everyone.
The issue of borders is, in turn, a simple one in principle for socialists: borders are a nationalist enterprise and thus incompatible with an internationalist workers’ creed. Migration is a symptom of social violence when it is compelled by poverty, war, or climate change. But moving to faraway and strange places is often a beautiful journey too, one nurtured by love, adventure, and the drive for self-determination and realization. Migration should be free and the choice to migrate should be freely made. The border does not protect Americans against cultural change, economic insecurity, and terrorism. It bolsters a system of global inequality that harms people everywhere by dividing them.
Even with public opinion moving rapidly to our side, border controls will not fall anytime soon. To chip away at them, we must understand their historical particularity. The legal right to travel was, for most white people, a basic one for much of American history. It remains so for wealthy people, particularly those with passports from rich countries. Border controls arose in the United States not out of any neutral law enforcement principle but to exclude Asians, Jews, Italians, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, and other Others in the service of an exploitative and expansionist empire. Our land borders began to harden only alongside the rise of industrial capitalism, and were only militarized in recent decades.
If Democrats stick to the center on immigration, they will find themselves fighting on two fronts. A fight against Republicans, with the left at their back, will be far easier to win—and a more noble victory. Simple realism dictates that no legislation to grant citizenship to millions will be passed until Republicans are defeated. There’s no use trying to appease them. The bipartisan consensus supporting harsh immigration and border enforcement has fractured. Democratic elected officials need to catch up or be defeated too. It’s the task of the left to accelerate the nascent split, demanding radical reforms that correspond to our dream of a world where no human being is illegal. We must transform nation-states so that they no longer divide workers but instead are conduits for the democratic control of our social, economic, political, and ecological futures.
We must urgently develop demands for policies that will not create an open border overnight but a radically more open border soon. The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the hundreds of miles of already existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and reentry and the public charge rule must be repealed. Links between ICE and local law enforcement created by Secure Communities and 287(g) must be broken. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause, unencumbered by compromises that are not only distasteful but also politically ineffectual—and that today would provoke opposition from both the nativist right and the grassroots left.
************************************************
The nativists start with lies, myths, and distortions. The liberals start with truth and humane values. They used to meet in the “center right” which is “nativism lite” and bad news for migrants and for humane values.
With some logic, Denvir argues that the nativist right has now come “out of their shell” and just advocates against all foreigners and for maximum human cruelty. In other words, complete dehumanization and abandonment of the common good: A trashing of the “Statute of Liberty” (see, e.g., Stephen Miller & “Cooch Cooch”) and an obliteration of the real, diverse America, a nation of immigrants, in favor of a mythical “Whitbread” version that never really existed (as American has always been heavily reliant on the labor of non-white immigrants — but they often were intentionally kept without social standing or political power).
In many ways, the right’s abandonment of the “pro-immigration, anti-illegal immigration” false narrative frees liberals to explore more robust, realistic immigration policies that would serve the national interest, recognize the truth of American as a rich and diverse nation of immigrants, and, perhaps most helpfully, sharply reduce the amount of time, effort, and goodwill squandered on ultimately unrealistic and impractical immigration enforcement schemes and gimmicks (see e.g., “The Wall” & “The New American Gulag”). In that context, immigration enforcement could be rationalized and made more efficient to serve the actual national interests rather than the political (and sometimes financial) interests of the far-right nativist minority.
January 28, 2020
