Border Enforcement – Page 107 – immigrationcourtside.com

BREAKING NEWS: Trump (Predictably) Fires Acting AG Sally Yates For Refusing To Defend Executive Order

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/acting-attorney-general-an-obama-administration-holdover-wont-defend-trump-immigration-order/2017/01/30/a9846f02-e727-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_mobile-banledeall-917am:homepage/story&utm_term=.2bb3e1f21f15

The Washington Post reports tonight:

“President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night, after Yates ordered Justice Department lawyers Monday not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world.

In a press release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”

The White House has named Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general. Boente told The Washington Post that he will agree to enforce the immigration order.
Earlier on Monday, Yates ordered Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world, declaring in a memo that she is not convinced the order is lawful.

Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure that the department’s position is “legally defensible” and “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.”
“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful,” Yates wrote. She wrote that “for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”

Yates is a holdover from the Obama administration, but the move nonetheless marks a stunning dissent to the president’s directive from someone who would be on the front lines of implementing it.”

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

Nothing very surprising here. As noted in the article, Yates was a holdover from the Obama Administration. I suppose it’s a nice note of protest for her to end her DOJ tenure.

Nevertheless, Yates was basically a bystander and enabler as her boss, AG Loretta Lynch, and the Obama Administration created chaos in the U.S. Immigration Court system. Lynch and Yates, who, to the best of my knowledge neither set foot inside a U.S. Immigration Court nor took the time to speak in person with sitting judges, mandated enforcement-based priorities which attempted to race vulnerable women, children, and families from Central America seeking refuge in the U.S. through the process on an expedited basis without a reasonable chance to obtain lawyers or present their claims. Indeed, while she might be having pangs of conscience about defending the Trump orders, Yates’s DOJ lawyers had little difficulty defending the facially absurd contention that children who couldn’t even speak English could represent themselves on complex asylum claims in Immigration Court. Meanwhile, those who had been patiently waiting on the Immigration Court’s docket for years and were actually ready to proceed to trial on their claims for relief were arbitrarily “orbited” to the end of the line — years in the future. Yates and Lynch inherited a court system in crisis and left it a disaster.

Then, there was judicial selection. Yates presided over a “Rube Goldberg Type” glacial, hyper-bureaucratized, opaque, hiring process that effectively excluded those outside government from the Immigration Judiciary and the Board of Immigration Appeals, while leaving approximately 75 unfilled positions at the end of the Administration and a BIA structure and system that basically institutionalized and reinforced the aggressively anti-due-process procedures put in place by Attorney General Ashcroft during the Bush Administration. She and her boss left behind total chaos and a due process train wreck that mocked the noble vision of the U.S. Immigration Courts: through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.

So, forgive me if I can’t get too enthused about Yates’s belated show of backbone. Her gesture was purely symbolic, and cost her nothing, since she was going to be replaced immediately upon Sessions’s confirmation. But, when she actually had a chance to improve due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts, she was, sadly, MIA.

PWS

01/30/17

Is President Trump’s EO On Refugees and Visas Legal? Nolan Rappaport of The Hill Says The Statutory Authority Is Clear, If “Clumsily Executed” — Professor David Cole Of Georgetown Law Says It’s Unconstitutional!

Nolan points to section 212(f) of the INA:

“The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

‘(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’
The 90-day suspension can be waived on a case-by-case basis.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has applied this waiver to the entry of lawful permanent residents. He has stated that, “absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

. . . .

A federal judge has granted an emergency stay request from the American Civil Liberties Union to bar the deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. after the EO was issued.

Frankly, I do not understand this judge’s order. The issuance of a visa does not guarantee an alien’s admission into the United States. In fact, this is explicitly stated on the State Department’s Frequently Asked Questions site About Visas – The Basics.

“After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?
“A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States.”
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

But was it the best way to accomplish that objective?”

Read Nolan’s full article in The Hill here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

David argues that the EO is clearly unconstitutional:

“According to the Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 US. 228, 244 (1982). But that command is apparently not clear enough for President Donald Trump. On Friday he signed an Executive Order on refugees that imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, and at the same time establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with “minority religions” in their country of origin. In case there was any doubt about the latter provision’s intent, Trump told Christian Broadcast News that it was intended to give priority to “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”

In both respects, the Executive Order violates the “clearest command of the Establishment Clause.” First, as I developed in an earlier post, the Constitution bars the government from targeting Islam. One of the lowest of many low moments in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was his December 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration. The proposal treated as presumptively suspect a religion practiced by about 1.6 billion people worldwide, nearly a quarter of the globe’s population. Trump soon retreated to talk of “extreme vetting,” but never gave up his focus on the religiohttp://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=891&action=edit#n of Islam. Friday’s executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises.”

Read David’s full article in Just Security here:

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause

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

I see Nolan’s point. But, statutory authority doesn’t necessarily mean it’s constitutional.

On David’s constitutional question, Federal Courts have been willing to intervene at times to protect due process rights of individuals who are physically present in the United States, particularly those who have green cards. The Administration’s ill-thought-out, confusing, and initially heavy handed (or “clumsy” in Nolan’s words) implementation of the EO gave opponents a golden opportunity to score some early temporary victories in cases involving green card holders and others who had valid visas or refugee admission documents at the time the embarked for the United States.

But, beyond that, the EO falls at the intersection of immigration law, foreign policy, and national security, three subjects on which the Federal Courts traditionally have been reluctant to challenge the Executive’s authority. Courts have historically been reluctant to review the Executive’s exercise of authority beyond U.S. territory. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Executive’s authority to engage in “high seas interdiction” of Haitian migrants even though it appeared to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the U.N. Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

Up until 1965, the U.S. immigration laws blatantly discriminated on the basis of race and national origins. The Supreme Court never held any of those provisions unconstitutional. In fact, it was Congress, not the Supreme Court, which forced the 1965 changes to make the law more equitable.

And, leaving aside the legal and national security policy issues, the politics of this situation are far from clear. The initial NBC-4-DC poll (presumably from the DC Metro viewing area) showed 62% of respondents opposed the President’s order. By contrast, the initial Quinnipiac nationwide poll showed 48% to 42% support for the controversial Executive Order. Perhaps, President Trump is on stronger ground politically than the many nationwide protests and fierce reaction against his Executive Order would indicate.

PWS

01-30-17

BREAKING: DHS Secretary John Kelly Finds Readmission Of LPRs In The “National Interest” — Text Of Statement Below

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY JOHN KELLY ON THE ENTRY OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS INTO THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON – In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.

Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

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

According to Chuck Todd on “Meet The Press” this AM, the DHS opposed the inclusion of “green card holders” in the EO, but their objections apparently were ignored by the Trump WH staff who did the drafting (without much thought or consultation, it appears).

I must admit to hoping that Gen. Kelly at DHS and Gen. Mattis at DOD would be the “adults in the room” on some of these issues. The problem might be that they aren’t “in the room” when the decisions are made.

With guys like Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach and Stephen Miller, with well- established track records of poor judgement and divisiveness (and that’s putting it charitably) mis-advising Trump on immigration, it’s likely to be an uphill climb for anyone purporting to be the voice of reason and sound judgment. And, I’m certainly not trying to give Trump a pass here; he selected and empowered this team of spectacularly unqualified senior advisors.

PWS

01/29/17

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly, EDNY, Stays Deportation Of Individuals Held Under Trump’s Executive Order — Finds “Irreparable Harm” To Individuals!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name:page/breaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ee674f9be00b

From the Washington Post:

“In Brooklyn, after a brief hearing in front of a small audience that filtered in from a crowd of hundreds outside, Donnelly determined that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision. She seemed to have little patience for the arguments presented by the government, which focused heavily on the fact that the two defendants named in the lawsuit had already been released. At one point, she visibly lost patience with a government attorney who was participating by phone.

Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. “Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country,” she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question.”

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

I feel the Judge’s pain with the Government’s disingenuous arguments. Implementing such a draconian measure on a weekend with no notice is just plain stupid. And arguing that the Government would somehow be harmed by agreeing to stay the removal of meticulously pre-screened individuals with valid visas long enough for the Judge to fully consider the substantial constitutional arguments presented is beyond ludicrous.

I also feel for the poor AUSA stuck defending this kind of nonsense by an obstinate Administration that knows no compromise. I had to help defend a few of these in my Government career. At the time of my “first retirement” from the DOJ, one DOJ litigator said that he would miss me because I “was the best ever at providing reasonable explanations for my agency’s fundamentally irrational policies.”

The temporary restraining order issued by the Judge does not decide the merits of the dispute. It merely maintains the status quo so that the Judge can decide the case after full briefing and argument by the parties at a time other than a Saturday night. However, in addition to finding irreparable harm, Judge Donnelly also found a “strong likelihood” that the individual plaintiffs would prevail on their arguments based on Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection. A copy of the order is at the link below. Stay tuned.

Darweesh v Trump_DECISION and ORDER document-3

PWS

01/28/17

CBS News: “Overloaded U.S. immigration courts a ‘recipe for disaster'”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-us-immigration-courts-deportations/

AIMEE PICCHI/MONEYWATCH writes:

“President Donald Trump is taking what he portrays as a hard-nosed approach to undocumented immigrants, issuing an order this week to boost the number of U.S. border patrol agents and to build detention centers.

But what happens when a federal push to ramp up arrests and deportations hits a severely backlogged federal court system?

“It’s a recipe for a due process disaster,” said Omar Jadwat, an attorney and director of the Immigrant Rights Project at the ACLU. Already, he pointed out, there are “large, large numbers of caseloads” in immigration court, and Mr. Trump’s directives threaten to greatly increase the number of people caught in the system, he said.

Just how backlogged is the system for adjudicating deportations and related legal matters? America’s immigration courts are now handling a record-breaking level of cases, with more than 533,000 cases currently pending, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC, a data gathering site that tracks the federal government’s enforcement activities. That figure is more than double the number when Mr. Obama took office in 2009.

As a result, immigrants awaiting their day in court face an average wait time of 678 days, or close to two years.
Immigrant rights advocates say the backlog is likely to worsen, citing Mr. Trump’s order on Wednesday to hire 5,000 additional border patrol agents while also enacting a freeze on government hiring. Whether the U.S. Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, will be able to add judges given the hiring freeze isn’t clear.

A spokeswoman from the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review said the agency is awaiting “further guidance” regarding the hiring freeze from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. In the meantime, she said, the agency “will continue, without pause, to protect the nation with the available resources it has today.”

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

There is video to go with the complete story at the link.

The situation is likely to get much worse in the U.S. Immigration Courts. Obviously, due process is not going to be a high priority for this Administration. And, while the Executive Orders can be read to give Attorney General Jeff Sessions authority to continue hiring Immigration Judges, filling the 75 or so currently vacant positions won’t begin to address the Immigration Courts’ workload problems.

Then, there are the questions of space and support staff. One of the reasons more vacancies haven’t been filled to date is that many Immigration Courts (for example, the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, VA) have simply run out of space for additional judges and staff.

The parent agency of the Immigration Courts, “EOIR,” is counting on being allowed to continue with expansion plans currently underway. But, even if Attorney General Sessions goes forward with those plans, that space won’t be ready until later in 2017, and that’s highly optimistic.

This does not seem like an Administration that will be willing to wait for the current lengthy highly bureaucratic hiring system to operate or for new Immigration Judges to be trained and “brought up to speed.” So various “gimmicks” to speed hiring, truncate training, and push the Administration’s “priority cases” — likely to be hundreds of thousands of additional cases — through the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals at breakneck speed.

Consequently, the whole “due process mess” eventually is likely to be thrown into the U.S. Courts of Appeals where “final orders of removal” are reviewed by Article III Judges with lifetime tenure, rather than by administrative judges appointed and supervised by the Attorney General.

PWS

01/28/17

Forbes: “Don’t Mess Around With Slim” — Has Trump Bitten Off More Than He Can Chew In Provoking Economic/Trade Confrontation With Mexico?

http://www.forbes.com

Dolia Estevez writes in Forbes:

“At the press conference, Slim was flanked by two of his sons and a son-in-law and holding Trump’s books “Great Again” and “The Art of The Deal.” Slim called the American President a “great negotiator” who knows how to take advantage of weak adversaries.

Slim praised the Mexican President for calling Trump’s bluff and said that the outpouring of support for Peña Nieto showed Trump that Mexico is united to face the challenge.

This week’s unusual public showdown with Mexico–a friendly nation closely linked to the U.S. by geography, trade, culture and history—plunged U.S.-Mexico relations to a new low.

But in an apparent effort to cool tensions, Trump and Peña Nieto spoke for an hour by phone on Friday. The Mexican president’s office said in a statement that the two presidents, “agreed for now to not speak publicly about” the wall. Slim said the call between the leaders was a result of Mexico standing up to Trump. He suggested they should talk more and tweet less.

“Lack of unity brought Mexico five wars and four losses of territory. We learned that lesson. We have always been stronger united. We have to negotiate with Trump from a position of strength, without anger or submission. It will be a difficult and hard negotiation,” Mexico’s richest man said.

Slim said the “best wall” to prevent Mexicans from going North would be investment that creates job opportunities in Mexico.

Slim’s call for unity comes a week after a Mexican poll gave Slim the highest percentage approval among Mexican public figures as the best qualified person to face Trump. With his popularity approaching single digits, most Mexicans see Peña Nieto as politically too weak to stand up to Trump.”

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

While Slim no longer holds the title of “World’s Richest Person” (that’s Bill Gates at $84.2 billion) his #6 ranking and $50 billion net worth is not too shabby and still makes hm the richest person in Latin America. Slim makes President Trump, who weighed in at a distant #502 with a mere $3.7 billion net worth, look like a “loser” by comparison. Trump’s economic sword rattling has also helped Slim become the most popular man in Mexico and the one most Mexicans would choose to “do battle” with Trump at the negotiating table.

PWS

01/28/17

CNN: The Human Trauma Of Trump’s Executive Orders Begins — Those Who Played By The Rules, Helped America, And Believed in Our Fairness And Humanity Face Potential Detention And Removal!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/index.html

“Lawyers for two Iraqis with ties to the US military who had been granted visas to enter the United States have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the US government after they were detained when they arrived in New York Friday.

The lawsuit could represent the first legal challenge to Trump’s controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called “extreme vetting” of immigrants.
Trump’s order also bars Iraqi citizens, as well as people from six other Muslim-majority nations, from entering the US for 90 days, and suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until it is reinstated “only for nationals of countries for whom” members of Trump’s Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.

According to court papers, both men legally were allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump’s move to ban travel from several Muslim-majority nations.

The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal. They were still at John F. Kennedy International Airport as of late Saturday morning, one of the lawyers told CNN.

“Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights,” the lawyers argue in court papers.
The two Iraqi men named as plaintiffs in the suit are Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the US during the Iraq War, and Haider Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi. The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was granted the day of Trump’s inauguration on January 20, due to his work for the US government from 2003 to 2013.

The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for their association with the US military.”

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

The CNN report notes that lawsuits challenging the Executive Order have been filed. But as immigration scholar and Clinical Professor Steve Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law states in the full article, the lawsuit is no “slam dunk” given the Executive’s authority over immigration.

Also, these two individual had been approved and actually had visas when the Executive Order was issued. Most individuals “in the pipeline”who have been conditionally approved have not yet been issued visas. So, they won’t even be able to board planes for the United States. Others who actually have visas in hand will probably find that they have been cancelled before they can get on a plane for the U.S.

U.S. Courts have been most reluctant to review actions by the Executive that ostensibly relate to foreign policy, and particularly averse to reviewing actions taken by U.S. officials in foreign countries acting at the direction of the President or the Secretary of State.

Congress could act to attempt to limit or direct the President with respect too refugees. But that’s not going to happen. And, if it did, it would also raise some difficult separation of powers issues

So, when the smoke clears, it is quite possible that NGOs, refugee advocates, and others who oppose the President’s directives on refugees will be without a forum in which to challenge him.

PWS

01/28/17

Some Thought The World Would Test President Trump With An Early Crisis — But He Didn’t Wait — He Provoked An Entirely Avoidable One — With Our Friend, Ally, Neighbor, And Huge Trading Partner To The South!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-little-mexican-war-1485477900

From today’s WSJ editorial:

“When Mr. Trump visited the Journal in November 2015, we asked if the U.S. should encourage political stability and economic growth in Mexico. “I don’t care about Mexico honestly, I really don’t care about Mexico,” he replied.

That’s obvious, but he should care—and he will have to—if Mexico regresses to its ways before its reformation began in the 1980s. For decades our southern neighbor was known for one-party government, anti-Americanism, hyperinflation and political turmoil.

With U.S. encouragement, Mexico began to reform its statist economic model and embrace global competition. Ahead of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), Mexico privatized thousands of state-owned companies and deregulated much of the economy. With Nafta it cut tariffs and opened to foreign investment. Mexican agricultural was especially hard-hit by U.S. competition, but its businesses became more efficient and Nafta helped the country rebound from the 1994 peso crisis.”

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

“I really don’t care about Mexico.” That really says it all about our President. But, maybe we should care, even if he doesn’t. What’s going to happen when he’s called upon to handle a real international crisis, not just one of his own making?

PWS

01/27/17

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

Immigration beat reporter Beth Fertig of WNYC/NPR reports:

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

Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito said these limits make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Mollie & co.’s complete report here:

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

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

PWS

01/26/17

Instant Analysis Of Trump’s Border Orders by Raphael Bernal & Mike Lillis (Not N. Rappaport As I Erroneously Posted Earlier) In The Hill!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316101-trump-orders-work-to-begin-on-border-wall

Raphael Bernal and Mike Lillis write in The Hill:

“President Trump on Wednesday signed two executive orders on immigration, including one that directs federal agencies to begin construction of a wall on the border with Mexico, his signature campaign promise.

Trump signed the actions during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as his aides met in the White House with two top Mexican cabinet officials.

“A nation without borders is not a nation,” Trump said during a speech at DHS headquarters. “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.”

The president said his directive “will save thousands of lives, millions of jobs, and billions and billions of dollars.”

One of the orders signed by Trump calls for the construction of “a large physical barrier on the southern border,” according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

The other order deals with immigration enforcement and ends the “catch and release” policy that quickly returned border crossers back to Mexico instead of arresting and processing them for deportation. The policy was a fixture of the Bush administration and was later reinstated on an informal basis by former President Barack Obama.

“Federal agents are going to unapologetically enforce the law, no ifs, ands or buts,” Spicer said.

The immigration actions also seek to withhold visas from countries to make sure they take back people in the U.S. illegally who are found to have broken U.S. laws. It would also strip federal grants from “sanctuary” cities and states that do not enforce federal immigration laws.

“We’re going to strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants,” Spicer said.”

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

My apologies to Raphael, Mike, and Nolan for botching the byline in the original posting. The “talk” is over; we’re into the “action” phase.

PWS

01/25/17

Trump Signs Border Orders, Promises To Restore Control!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pledges-to-start-work-on-border-wall-within-months/2017/01/25/dddae6ee-e31e-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_immigration-2pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a28fc29fd921

Breaking news from today’s Washington Post:

“President Trump signed a pair of executive actions Wednesday to begin ramping up immigration enforcement, including a new border wall with Mexico, vowing that construction on his chief campaign pledge would begin in months.

In an appearance at the Department of Homeland Security, Trump kicked off the rollout of a series of directives aimed at clamping down on the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States. Aides said more directives could come later this week, including new restrictions on refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

The presidential directives signed Wednesday aim to create more detention centers, add more federal border control agents and withhold federal funds to cities that do not comply with federal immigration laws, Trump aides said.

“We are going to restore the rule of law in the United States,” Trump said, addressing DHS employees after signing the orders. “Beginning today the United State gets control of its borders.”

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

Toward the end of the story, there might be good news for at least some so-called “Dreamers.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that President Trump recognized the humanitarian issues at stake here and was developing his solution.

PWS

01/25/17

Quartz Media Reporter Ana Campoy “Nails” The Obama Administration’s Failed Southern Border Strategy — “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.” (Quoting Me)

THE LAW IS THE LAW
The US doesn’t have an immigration problem—it has a refugee problem
Ana Campoy January 18, 2017

http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.170117.html

Quote boxes:

“In fact, Trump’s fixation with blocking illegal immigration from Mexico, which has plummeted in recent years, obfuscates the problem. Yes, border patrol agents are apprehending thousands of people every month along the US-Mexico line, but many of them—around half, according to Claire McCaskill, a member of the US Senate’s homeland security and governmental affairs committee—turn themselves in voluntarily asking for help. Government statistics bear this out. The number of immigrants claiming fear of persecution or torture in their home countries is on the rise, and so are the findings that those claims are credible. In order to be considered for asylum by an immigration judge, immigrants first have to go through a “credible fear” screening, in which an asylum officer determines whether the claims they are making have a “significant possibility” of holding up in court.

More than 70% of those who claimed credible fear in the 2016 fiscal year hailed from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, places beset by rampant violence.

Under US law, individuals who are found to have credible fear have the right to due process to determine the validity of their claims in the court. Whether they are Syrians escaping civil war, or El Salvadorans fleeing from criminal gangs, what they have to prove is the same: that they face persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

But US authorities don’t always take Central American immigrants’ fears seriously, studies suggest. One, released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2016, found that not all border patrol agents are asking immigrants if they’re afraid to return to their country, as they are required to do. Other agents refuse to believe them, per the report, which is based on immigrant testimony documented by the group. Another 2016 analysis, by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory body, noted, “outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims” by certain officers, among other practices that may be resulting in deportations of refugees with a legitimate right to stay.

A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesman said the agency “strives to treat every person we encounter with dignity and respect.” Anyone with concerns about the treatment doled out by its officers can call the agency, he added.”

. . . .

“The Obama administration’s response has already run up against the law. For example, several courts have shot down the government’s arguments and efforts to justify the detention of children and families while their cases wait to be resolved—a policy meant to convince would-be immigrants to stay home.

On Jan. 13, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accusing CBP officers of turning back people requesting asylum at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border. In what the groups called an “alarming new trend,” the officers have allegedly been telling immigrants that they can’t enter the country without a visa— contrary to US law—and referring them to Mexican immigration authorities.

Trump has framed his border policy as a choice between enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration or skirting them. But the decision facing US leaders is rather more complicated: Should the US continue providing refuge to those who are unfairly persecuted in their home countries?

If Americans are unwilling to do that, perhaps it’s time to do away with the nation’s asylum laws—and remove the famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty welcoming the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Recently retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt put it this way: “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.”

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

In my view, Ana Campoy provides a remarkably clear and well-documented analysis of why the Obama Administration’s “get tough” border policies have failed, and why the Trump Administration would be wise to take a more “nuanced” approach that recognizes our obligation to provide due process and protection under our laws to individuals fleeing from the Northern Triangle.

As incoming DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly has recognized, this problem can’t be solved just by (even more) enhanced enforcement on our end. It will require addressing the systemic problems in the sending countries of the Northern Triangle, which certainly have most of the characteristics of “failed states,” as well as working with other stable democratic nations in the Americas to fashion meaningful protections, inside or outside the asylum system, for those who are likely to face torture, death, or other types of clear human rights abuses if returned to the Northern Triangle at present.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, and there are no “silver bullets.” But, we know what doesn’t work. So, it sure seems like it would be a good idea to try different approaches (and I don’t mean repealing asylum protections as Ana, somewhat facetiously suggests near the end of her article).

PWS

01/19/17

Washington Post: U.S. & Mexican Officials Allegedly Flout U.S. Asylum Law (And International Treaties) At Southern Border!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-border-officials-are-illegally-turning-away-asylum-seekers-critics-say/2017/01/16/f7f5c54a-c6d0-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.4f9b23834fc7

Joshua Partlow writes in the Washington Post:

“I am fleeing my country,” the policeman later recalled telling the guards, explaining that he had survived two attempts on his life. “I am being persecuted in a matter of life and death.”

The policeman said he was told he needed to see Mexican immigration authorities, who would put him on a waiting list to make his case to U.S. officials. But Mexican authorities refused to add him to the list, the policeman said, and he has been stuck in northern Mexico.

The Guatemalan is one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of foreigners who have been blocked in recent months from reaching U.S. asylum officials along the border, according to accounts from migrants and immigration lawyers and advocates.

The details of their cases vary. At the U.S. border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego, numerous asylum seekers from Central America and Mexico have been referred to Mexican authorities for an appointment with U.S. officials — but Mexican authorities often turn them down, according to migrants and immigration lawyers. In other places, migrants have been told by U.S. border agents that the daily quota for asylum cases has been reached or that a visa is required for asylum seekers, a statement that runs contrary to law, immigration advocates say.”

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

The law is very clear: “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 1158(a).

Also, without getting too much into the particular facts, it appears that the former Guatemalan policeman described in the quote above could have a strong case for asylum under the BIA’s long-standing precedent decision Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988), finding that “former policeman” could potentially be a “particular social group” for asylum purposes.

Part of the problem here is that the U.S. does not have a meaningful “overseas refugee program” for the Northern Triangle. If the present, quite restrictive, program were expanded in both numbers and scope, and if the processing were more timely, more people would probably apply and be screened abroad, rather than coming directly to the border to apply. The U.S. could actually do Northern Triangle refugee processing in Mexico.

Additionally, the U.S. could encourage the Mexican Government to establish a program of temporary protection, similar to our “Temporary Protected Status,” so that individuals from the Northern Triangle who faced death or danger upon return could remain in Mexico even if the did not satisfy all of the technical requirements for refugee status.

Moreover, like the U.S., Mexico is a signatory to the U.N. Convention and Protocol on Refugees, but apparently has not done a particularly effective job of carrying it out. Why not work with the Mexican Government not just on law enforcement initiatives, but also on training adjudicators to provide fair hearings to individuals seeking protection under the Convention?

It might also be possible to work with other “stable” democratic governments in the Americas to share the distribution of those from the Northern Triangle who need protection.

Last, but certainly not least, as the incoming Secretary of Homeland Security, Gen. John Kelly, has suggested, it is important for a more permanent solution to work with governments in the Northern Triangle to provide stability and the rule of law in those “sending countries.”

We know that just throwing more money, personnel, walls, sensors, helicopters, detention centers, moats, etc. at the problem won’t effectively address the continuing flow of “desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances.” And, as our law provides, whether they come to our borders and turn themselves in or enter, legally or illegally, they actually have a right to seek asylum in the United States.

Isn’t it time to try some “smart strategies,” rather than just doubling down on the same old “enforcement only” approaches that have failed in the past and will continue to do so in the future?

PWS

01/17/17

Send In The Marines — Gen. Kelly Looks Like He Has The “Right Stuff” For DHS!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/01/11/john-kelly-said-immigration-policy-confirmation-hearing-dhs-secretary/

Maurice Belanger at Immigration Impact reports on Kelly’s immigration views:

“First, Kelly believes that much of the current migration from Central American countries has its roots in drug consumption in the U.S., which drives violence. His view is that the ultimate solution to the migration crisis, in addition to reducing American drug use, is to support governments in the region attempting to restore public safety and economic opportunity. He also stated that he believes that part of the reason migrants are coming to the U.S. is because they carry the notion that once they arrive, they will be able to stay. In his pre-hearing questionnaire, he noted that senior leaders of Central American countries told him that, “If you do not start sending them back to their country of origin quickly and in large numbers they will never stop making the trek north.”

Completely missing from the discussion however was what the U.S. should do in the meantime while addressing the violence and other factors pushing people out of Central America. As well as, what are America’s obligations to individuals arriving from the region seeking safety and security?

There was also considerable discussion of low morale among Border Patrol employees to which Kelly said that he believed “the number one thing right now would be in accordance with the law, let the people who are tasked to protect the border do their job.” However, there was no examination of assertions that Border Patrol agents are “prevented” from doing their job.

Kelly also demonstrated mixed views on enforcement of immigration law. For example, in an exchange on the issue of so-called “sanctuary cities,” Kelly said, “I understand maybe the perspective of some of the local leaders, but I do think the law is the law and I think the law has to be followed.” Yet, in another exchange with Senator Kamala Harris of California about DACA recipients and their families, Kelly said that, “I think law abiding individuals would in my mind, with limited assets to execute the law, would probably not be at the top of the list.”

However the more specific the questions got on immigration the more Kelly appeared out of his depth and unprepared to provide answers. For example, Senator Harris asked if Kelly would honor the government’s commitment not to use information collected on DACA recipients for enforcement purposes. Kelly responded that he had not been involved in “the entire development of immigration policy that is ongoing,” and only promised to “be involved in those discussions” if confirmed.

Finally, in response to a question by Michigan’s Senator Gary Peters concerning the establishment of a government database on Muslims in the U.S. Kelly responded, “I don’t agree with registering people based on ethnic or religion or anything like that.”

Over the course of the hearing, senators from both parties praised Kelly’s service to the country and he is likely to be confirmed. His views on the complicated set of laws and policies that govern our immigration system are still largely unformed. Hopefully, his need to better understand the policies in place, will translate into engagement with stakeholders concerned with immigrants and immigration.”

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

From what I have heard and read, General Kelly is a highly competent, thoughtful, well-organized leader who has the ability to inspire those around him. I’ve also read that he takes human rights responsibilities very seriously, and is willing to get input from a broad range of individuals — not just “insiders.” To me, that’s exactly what DHS needs: some perspective, discipline, and mission focus.

Yes, he doesn’t have an immigration background — most Generals don’t. But at least he comes at it from a professional law enforcement and national security angle — not as an advocate of reducing legal immigration or treating undocumented individuals like criminals.

And, he has some outstanding talent to advise him on immigration matters among the executive ranks of the career public servants at DHS. Lori L. Scialabba, Deputy Director of USCIS (former Chair of the BIA and Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS”) and Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel of ICE in Arlington, VA immediately come to mind as accomplished managers with “big picture” views. I’m sure there are many others who can help General Kelly formulate reasonable and effective immigration policies.

My one concern from reading this particular clip was General Kelly’s repetition of the “urban myth” that the way to stem the flow of Central American refugees is by “quick returns.” That’s been the Obama Administration policy, and well as the policy of all other Administrations when faced with border incursions. It has demonstrably failed during the Obama Administration, as it consistently has for the last four decades and will continue to do so.

That’s because it’s based on the false premise that most arrivals can, or should be, returned. In reality, however, a substantial number, probably the majority, of those coming are fleeing violence, rape, death threats, and torture, and are therefore likely to have valid claims for protection under U.S. law if the proper legal standards are fairly and at least somewhat uniformly applied (something which, sadly, does not always happen).

Consequently, they can’t be sent home, and they are going to keep coming to apply for protection they are entitled to under our laws. And, throwing them in detention isn’t going to deter them either — that’s been proved. But it will certainly run up the taxpayers’ costs while eroding both our commitment to human rights and our moral standing as a nation.

Trying to reduce the violence and improve conditions in the Northern Triangle is important. It was mentioned by Gen. Kelly, but it’s a “long haul,” not a short term, solution.

In the short run, a larger, more inclusive and realistic overseas refugee processing program in or near the Northern Triangle, combined with use of available mechanisms such as Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) and Deferred Enforced Departure (“DED”) to grant temporary protection short of asylum are likely to be more effective in promoting orderly border enforcement without adding to the workload of the already overwhelmed Asylum Offices and Immigration Courts.

We’re not going to be able to stop desperate individuals from coming without committing large scale violations of both domestic law and international treaty obligations. But, we should be able to manage the flow so that the “bad guys” get screened out and returned while the others can remain temporarily without going into the asylum system while we’re trying to sort out and improve the situation in the Northern Triangle. Perhaps, we also could reach agreements with other stable democracies in the Western Hemispheres to share the protection burden and distribute the flow. It’s not an easy problem, and there are no easy or great solutions.

I know these aren’t then “quick fixes” or “silver bullet” solutions that folks want to hear about. They also won’t satisfy those who want to shut to doors to migration.

But, four decades of working on “quick fixes” from all sides — law enforcement, private sector, and judicial — tells me that we need a better, more practical, and more humane approach. To just keep repeating the same failing policies over and over and expecting them to achieve success is, well, just plain . . . .

PWS

01/12/17

Mexico Searches For Equilibrium With New Administration!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/top-mexican-official-warns-of-a-new-era-in-relations-with-the-us-under-trump/2017/01/09/71658602-8bed-47c4-9ebe-7bd04d5dd631_story.html

“In his speech Monday, Videgaray asserted Mexico’s importance to the United States and vowed to defend his country’s sovereignty. As examples of the benefits of trade and immigration, he cited the close relationship between auto plants in Mexico and Michigan, Mexican companies that have invested in Dallas, and the key role played by Mexican workers in the milk industry in Wisconsin.

Trump has criticized American companies for moving factory jobs to Mexico, and threatened to impose a “border tax” on firms that make products there bound for U.S. markets. Ford recently announced that it had canceled plans for a $1.6 billion plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, after Trump’s repeated criticism of Ford and other companies. The Mexican government is concerned that it will lose manufacturing jobs due to measures proposed by Trump.

“We are going to negotiate with great self-confidence; without fear, knowing the economic, social and political importance that Mexico has for the United States, and we are going to negotiate with intelligence and common sense,” Videgaray added.

He said he wanted to make it clear that “these millions of Mexicans who have emigrated to look for work are not as they have been described — criminals — but they are productive people who represent in the majority of cases the best of Mexico.”

PWS

01/09/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: