Migration – Page 291 – immigrationcourtside.com

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

Rappaport — Trump Will Inherit A Mess In the U.S. Immigration Courts — Former GOP Hill Staffer Peter Levinson Tells Us In One Sentence Why The Current System Is “Built To Fail” — Can Anyone Fix this Mess Before It’s Too Late For Our Country And The Millions Whose Lives And Futures Depend Our Immigration Court’s Ability To Guarantee Fairness And Deliver Due Process? Read My Commentary — “We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?” — Below!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/314238-our-immigration-court-crisis-will-be-trumps-lasting-headache

We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Writing in The Hill, my friend Nolan Rappaport says:

“President-elect Donald Trump will have to deal with this situation before he can begin his promised enforcement program.
Realistically, he is going to have to consider asking Congress for a legalization program to reduce the undocumented population but it does not have to be the kind of legalization program that the Democrats have been proposing.”

That makes lots of sense to me. It will certainly help the Immigration Courts to quickly remove many “non priority” cases from the docket without compromising due process. But, it’s not a complete solution to the problems facing our Immigration Courts.

And, well-respected scholar, gentleman, and former GOP Hill Immigration Staffer Peter Levinsion succinctly tells us why just fiddling around with the administrative process within the DOJ won’t get the job done:

“”The Attorney General’s ability to review Board decisions inappropriately injects a law enforcement official into a quasi-judicial appellate process, creates an unnecessary layer of review, compromises the appearance of independent Board decision-making, and undermines the Board’s stature generally.””

Yup, folks, the U.S. Immigration Courts, including the all-important Appellate Division (the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the “BIA”), where hundreds of thousands of individuals are awaiting the fair, independent due process hearings guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution, are actually a wholly owned subsidiary of the chief prosecutor and law enforcement officer of the U.S. — the Attorney General.

Who wouldn’t like to own a court system where your only client — the U.S. Government — is an interested party in every single case? Who wouldn’t, indeed, unless that court system is in the sad circumstances of the current U.S. Immigration Court system — overworked, understaffed, over-prioritized, under-appreciated, laboring under outdated systems and technology abandoned by most other courts decades ago, and generally out of control. Other than that, what’s the problem?

The answer, as proposed by Nolan and Peter, and many others including the Federal Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and many other nonpartisan judicial experts is an independent Article I (or even Article III) Immigration Court, including the Appellate Division.

“Impossible,” you say, “Congress and President Trump will never go for it. Nobody in the Washington ‘power curve’ could sell this idea.” But, I beg to disagree.

There is one person in Washington who could sell this long overdue idea to President Trump and legislators from both sides of the aisle. His name is Jeff Sessions. And, he’s about to become the next Attorney General of the United Sates.

Why would Attorney General Jeff Sessions suddenly become an advocate for due process and “good government?” Well, I can think of at least three obvious reasons.

First, being the “father” of an Article I Immigration Court would be a lasting positive contribution to our system of justice — not a bad legacy for a man who has been “on the wrong side of history” for much of his four decades of public service. Second, it would silence many of the critics who have doubted Sessions’s claims that he can overcome his “out of the mainstream” views of the past and protect and vindicate the rights of everyone in America, particularly in the sensitive areas of immigration and civil rights. Third, and perhaps most important, by creating an independent, credible, modern, due process oriented Immigration Court outside the Department of Justice, Sessions would pave the way for a more effective immigration enforcement strategy by the Administration while dramatically increasing the likelihood that removal orders will pass muster in the Article III Courts.

Sure sounds like a “win-win-win” to me. I’ve observed that the majority of the time, people act in accordance with their own best interests which frequently line up with the best interests of our country as a whole. Yes, there will always be a substantial minority of instances where people act against their best interests. Usually, that’s when they are blinded by an uncompromising philosophy or personal animus.

I can’t find much of the latter in Senator Sessions. He seems like a genuinely genial personality who makes it a point to get along with folks and treat them politely even when they disagree with his views. The former could be a problem for Sessions, however. Can he get beyond his highly restrictive outlook on immigration and adopt big-picture reforms? Only time will tell. But there is a precedent.

EOIR was actually created during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. It was two “strong enforcement types,” then INS Commissioner Al Nelson and General Counsel “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr., part of the so-called “California Mafia,” who persuaded then Attorney General William French Smith to remove the Immigration Judges from the “Legacy INS,” and combine them with the Board of Immigration Appeals to form EOIR, with then-BIA Chairman David Milhollan as the first EOIR Director. Smith selected as the first Chief Immigration Judge a well-respected (even if not universally beloved) apolitical Senior Executive, William R. Robie, who had run the Department’s Office of Attorney Personnel Management and had a well-deserved reputation in the Washington legal community for “getting the trains running on time.”

It was one of the few times in my more that three decades in Government that I witnessed Senior Political Executives actually arguing for a needed transfer of functions and personnel out of their own agency. Traditionally, agency heads battled furiously to hang on to any piece of “turf,” no matter how problematic its performance or how tangental it was to the agency’s mission. But, Nelson and Inman, who were litigators and certainly no “softies” on immigration enforcement, appreciated that for victories in Immigration Court to be meaningful and to stand up on further judicial review, the Immigration Court needed to be a level playing field that would be credible to those outside the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, the immediate improvements in due process and court management achieved by making the Immigration Courts independent from the “Legacy INS” have long since “played out.” The system within the DOJ not only reached a point of diminishing returns, but has actually been spiraling downward over the past two Administrations. Sadly, Nelson, Inman, Milhollan, and Robie have all died in the interim. But, it would be a great way to honor their memories, in the spirit of bipartisan reform and “smart government,” if an Article I Immigration Court were high on Attorney General Sessions’s agenda.

PWS

01/17/17

WSJ Editorial: Keep DACA, Can DAPA — Half Right Is Better Than All Wrong — But, Why Not Do The “Smart” Thing And Keep Them Both?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-immigration-chance-1484266731

“Donald Trump will have a busy first day repealing President Obama’s executive orders, and here’s a suggestion to lighten the work load and win some goodwill in the bargain: Don’t revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration order.

DACA is the 2012 order granting temporary safe harbor for illegal immigrants who arrived as minors with their parents. That order is distinct from the 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order, which exempts from deportation some four million illegal immigrants.

Mr. Trump should repeal DAPA, a sweeping usurpation of Congress’s power to write immigration laws. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked DAPA at the request of 26 states, and the Supreme Court voted 4-4 to uphold the injunction. DAPA was among Mr. Obama’s most cynical executive actions, at once poisoning the chances for serious immigration reform while trying to pit minorities against Republicans for political purposes.

DACA is also an executive action, but its repeal now would harm innocent men and women. The order is limited to children brought illegally to the U.S. before the age of 16 who are attending school or have graduated, and who have continuously resided in the U.S. since at least 2007. About 741,000 immigrants have applied for DACA’s reprieve, which lets them obtain work permits that must be renewed after two years for a nontrivial fee of $465.

DACA applicants must undergo background checks, and they cannot have a felony or serious misdemeanor record. They can’t collect federal benefits or vote. DACA essentially offers the right to work and pay taxes in the U.S., and many applicants have served in the military. If DACA is repealed, Homeland Security’s tracking will end as tens of thousands slip into the shadows to avoid deportation to “home” countries where they are strangers.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed a legal challenge to DACA by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for lack of standing. We’d prefer if Congress codified DACA, and a bipartisan coalition of Senators wants to do so. This could be included if legislation moves this year to tighten immigration enforcement.

The main issue is fairness, as Mr. Trump has recognized. He told Time magazine in December that these young illegals were “brought here at a very young age. They’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here.” He added that “they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen” and “on a humanitarian basis, it’s a very tough situation.” He’s right, which is why we hope he’s willing to forbear on DACA while a legislative solution can be worked out.

No one doubts Mr. Trump’s resolve to reduce illegal immigration, and repealing DAPA would honor that campaign promise. But minors brought to the U.S. illegally aren’t responsible for that decision. Giving them a deportation reprieve would show that Mr. Trump’s immigration policy is aimed at enforcing the law, not at punishing minorities or any ethnic group. We can’t think of another early decision that would send a comparable message of inclusion and largeness of presidential spirit.”

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

I agree on DACA, disagree on DAPA. The reasons for going forward and implementing the DAPA program are almost as strong as for retaining DACA.

DAPA’s proposed beneficiaries — parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders — probably aren’t going to be removed anyway under the DHS priorities as initially described by soon to be DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly. They need to be taken off overcrowded Immigration Court dockets if the Trump Administration wants to pursue its version of “criminal removal” as a priority (although I note that this is essentially the same priority as the Obama Administration had). Instead of just leaving the DAPA folks “in limbo,” why not get them registered, documented, checked for criminal record, working legally, and make it easier for them to pay taxes, without handing out green cards or any other type of permanent status? It would be good for America.

PWS

01/13/17

Good News For Dreamers? — Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) Recognizes Moral, Human, And Practical Imperatives In Retaining DACA!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/13/in-remarkable-exchange-with-undocumented-mom-paul-ryan-exposes-cruelty-of-trumpism/?utm_term=.01a68f26de2a

As reported by Greg Sargent in his “The Morning Plum” in today’s Post, speaker Ryan had an exchange with an undocumented mother which got right to the heart of the human beings whose lives are in play in the DACA debate:

“In a remarkable exchange with an undocumented mother last night at a CNN town hall, House Speaker Paul Ryan strongly suggested to her that the revocation of protections for the DREAMers brought here as children will not be carried out. That’s newsworthy on its own. But beyond that, the exchange also exposed the cruelty of stepped-up mass deportations for many other low-level undocumented offenders:

It’s a powerful moment, but the policy details lurking underneath the emotion are also extremely important. A woman brought here illegally as an 11-year-old child “through no fault of her own,” as CNN’s Jake Tapper put it, asked whether she and “many families in my situation” should face deportation. “No,” Ryan responded. After noting her love for her daughter, Ryan added:

“What we have to do is find a way to make sure that you can get right with the law. And we’ve got to do this so that the rug doesn’t get pulled out from under you and your family gets separated. That’s the way we feel. And that is exactly what our new, incoming president has stated he wants to do….I’m sure you’re a great contributor to [your] community.”

This might be a reference to the fact that Trump recently seemed to back off his pledge to reverse President Obama’s executive action protecting DREAMers from deportation, saying instead that “we’re going to work something out” for them. Indeed, under subsequent questioning from Tapper, Ryan explicitly said he and the Trump transition team were working on a “good, humane solution” for the hundreds of thousands currently benefiting from that executive action.”

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

I hope that Speaker Ryan, a powerful person on the Washington scene, will be able to follow through on persuading President Trump and his GOP Congressional colleagues to “do the right thing” here. Combined with soon to be DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly’s non-polemical statements on DACA and enforcement priorities, there seems to be some hope of a reasonable solution to this difficult human situation.

PWS

01/13/17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Can “Globalists” and “Nationalists” Bridge Their Gap And Find Some Middle Ground For The Common Good?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-arent-the-world-1483728161

“Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.

“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,” says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Mr. Roy argues.

Even as committed a globalist as Mr. Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats, he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognize that “for the majority of the American people, borders mean something.”

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

This very interesting and thought provoking article by Greg Ip from the Wall Street Journal points out that the old “left – right” political struggles have been replaced by a contest between “globalism” and “nationalism” that often crosses some of the traditional political boundaries between left and right.

It also echoes some of the themes about the need to “understand where the other guys are coming from” rather than just “demonizing the opposition” that have been raised in previous blogs and comments by Thomas “Mink” Felhofer and Nolan Rappaport.

The world is definitely changing, and many of the “old norms” are breaking down. The challenge is how to find some stability in the middle that doesn’t sacrifice or run across strongly held views or principles.

When I was the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, I found one of the difficulties in reaching “consensus positions” is that, unlike a “compromise,” a “consensus” requires both ends of the spectrum to nominally support, or at least refrain from public disagreement with, the result. That’s a challenge when judges, or anyone else, have worked in the area for many years and have strong views tied to their underlying principles. For better or worse, on many occasions, the best we could do was “agree to disagree” and move on to the next case. That’s at best a “compromise” — “you win” this time but we’ll preserve our objections for the future — rather than a “consensus.” But, at least the results were very transparent and arguments for and against carefully developed for future debate.

PWS

01/07/17

Guess Who’s Going To Pay For That “Great Wall?” — Surprise: We Are, As Reported By CNN! — President Elect Trump blames “Dishonest Media!”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

“Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.

The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border, though in October, Trump suggested for the first time that Mexico would reimburse the US for the cost of the wall.
Trump defended that proposal Friday morning in a tweet, saying the move to use congressional appropriations was because of speed.

“The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!” Trump tweeted Friday.”

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

President Elect Trump promises that he will negotiate “full reimbursement” from Mexico at a later date. Don’t hold your breath. Yeah, as the President Elect notes, we’re Mexico’s biggest trading partner; but, Mexico is also one of our biggest. As a fast developing economy, I’m guessing that lots of other countries would be willing to do business with Mexico on favorable terms if the climate in the U.S. gets too stormy.

PWS

01/06/16

Experts Doubt Trump’s Ability To Make Good On Campaign Promises Of Mass Deportations, But Do Expect Him To Have Major Impact On Immigration Enforcement

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/donald-trump-immigration/index.html

A group of immigration experts on both sides of the issue interviewed by CNN all doubted that the Trump Administration would be able to carry out mass removals on the scale Trump alluded to on the campaign trail. Among the problems: Congressional funding for more enforcement and detention, severely backlogged U.S. Immigration Courts, practical problems of locating and processing undocumented individuals within the United States, and potential large scale resistance by states, cities, counties, and universities to overly aggressive enforcement efforts.

Here’s an excerpt (full article posted above):

“Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center For Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, said Trump’s campaign pledges to deport millions amounted to an “Archie Bunker moment” that should not have been taken seriously.
“He’s not going to be snapping his fingers and deporting millions of people over night,” said Krikorain, whose group’s motto is “Low-Immigration, pro-immigrant.”

“That’s not realistic,” Krikorian said. “No one thinks that’s going to happen.”

But Krikorian said “it’s very plausible” that Trump could ramp up deportations by 25% or more in 2017 and return to levels seen under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which he said reached about 400,000 a year when Bush left office.

That, he said, could be done without significant budgetary increases and despite resistance from sanctuary cities.

“I think the other side is making it seem more complicated than it needs to be,” he said.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, agreed that Trump would be able to have meaningful impact during the first year of his presidency, but not to the extent suggested during the campaign.

“On the campaign trail things are not nuanced. They’re black and white,” Yale-Loehr said. “It takes a while to turn the battleship of bureaucracy around.”

PWS

01/04/17

Will Workplace Immigration Raids Return Under Trump Administration?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/illegal-immigrants-raids-deportation.html?mabReward=A4&recp=0&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

“But as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office and promises to swiftly deport two million to three million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, bipartisan experts say they expect a return of the raids that rounded up thousands of workers at carwashes, meatpacking plants, fruit suppliers and their homes during the Bush years.

“If Trump seriously wants to step up dramatically the number of arrests, detentions and removals, I think he has to do workplace raids,” said Michael J. Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who represents detainees in civil rights cases.

Since the election, Mr. Trump has suggested that he plans to focus on deporting criminals. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers,” he told CBS News in November. “We’re getting them out of our country.”

But Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that to promptly reach his target number of deportations, the definition of who is a criminal would need to be broadened. In July 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank, estimated that of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, 820,000 had criminal records — a definition Mr. Obama mostly adhered to during his second term, evicting some 530,000 immigrants convicted of crimes since 2013.

Mr. Trump would need to expand the basket to include immigrants living in the United States illegally who have been charged but not convicted of crimes, those who have overstayed visas, those who have committed minor misdemeanors like traffic infractions, and those suspected of being gang members or drug dealers.

Targeting workers for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged or stolen Social Security number or driver’s license, produced a significant uptick in deportations under Mr. Bush. But the practice was widely criticized for splitting up families, gutting businesses that relied on immigrant labor and taking aim at people who went to work every day, rather than dangerous criminals.”

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

There is no statutory or other widely accepted definition of a “criminal alien.” As shown by this article in the NY Times, it could be narrow — covering only those who are actually removable from the United States by virtue of their crimes — or broad — covering anyone who has ever had contact with the criminal justice system and is potentially removable, regardless of whether there was a conviction or whether the crime itself is the ground for removal. For example, “driving with an expired license” is not a ground for removal. But, an undocumented individual arrested for “driving without a license” could be referred by the state or local authorities to the DHS to be placed in removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge finds that such an individual has no legal status in the United States, and that individual cannot establish that she or he is entitled to some type of relief from removal, the Immigration Judge must enter an order of removal, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest or the overall equities of the case.

PWS

01/04/17

The Numbers Are In — DHS FY 2016 Enforcement Stats Confirm that Obama Administration is #1 In Removals!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/01/04/deportation-numbers-2016/

Joshua Breisblatt writes on Immigration Impact:

“Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 immigration enforcement data which, coupled with the previous years’ totals under the Obama Administration, show that the total number of removals from FY 2009 to FY 2016 totaled more than 2.7 million. Simply stated, President Obama has deported more people than any other president in U.S. history.

However, underneath those numbers belie some important lessons about the changing dynamics of who is showing up at the U.S. border and how a November 2014 enforcement priorities memo shaped the number of people deported from the interior of the nation.

. . . .

This means, more would-be-asylees are arriving at the U.S. border, rather than economic migrants as in years’ past. Yet, many are being denied asylum or put through expedited deportation processes, both unworthy of the nation’s commitment to protect those in need.

Also of note, the number of individuals picked up and deported from the interior of the country is on the decline, likely due to the 2014 enforcement priorities memo that sought to avoid deporting individuals who posed no threat and have strong economic and community ties in the U.S.”

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

How much enforcement is enough? Never enough, according to some. Others disagree and think we’re going way overboard. As the Trump Administration is probably going to find out, “immigration enforcement” is more often than not a “can’t win” political proposition.

PWS

01/04/17

Is Trump’s Plan To Remove 3 Million “Criminal Aliens” Achievable?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-plan-to-deport-criminal-noncitizens-wont-work/2017/01/03/b68a3018-c627-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.4810f9c58fbd

“No,” says Professor and Immigration Practitioner Kari Hong of Boston College Law School in this op-ed in the Washington Post:

“If Trump truly wants to focus on drug dealers, terrorists, murderers and rapists, he should call on Congress to restore immigration law’s focus on those whom prosecutors and criminal judges determined were dangerous in the first place — people who were sentenced to five years or more in prison. That’s what the law used to be, before it was changed in 1996 to cover many more crimes.

Instead of penalizing immigrants for minor crimes, immigration law needs to separate contributing immigrants from their non-contributing peers. Those who pay taxes, have children born in the United States, serve in the military, work in jobs American citizens will not take or help those around them need a path to legalization. Those who cause more harm than good should be deported. Restoring proportionality and common sense to immigration law would certainly help make America great again.”

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

Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the above link and get the whole story.

PWS

01/04/17

From Haven to Hell: Venezuela On The Verge Of Collapse After Years Of Bad Government — Neighbors Brace For Humanitarian/Refugee Crisis!

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2017/01/hungry-venezuelans-flood-brazilian-towns-as-threat-of-mass-migration-looms.html

“Oil-rich Venezuela has been an immigrant destination for much of its history. Now it is a place to flee. Chronic food shortages, rampant violence and the erratic and often paranoid behavior of President Nicolás Maduro have turned the country’s border crossings and beaches into escape valves.”

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

I’ve blogged about this unfolding humanitarian disaster before. Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the link to read more.

PWS

01/04/17

Family Detention, Raids, Expediting Cases Fail To Deter Scared Central Americans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/central-americans-continue-to-surge-across-us-border-new-dhs-figures-show/2016/12/30/ed28c0aa-cec7-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.077ef694fd73

“Immigration advocates have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for its increased reliance on detention facilities, particularly for Central American families, who they argue should be treated as refugees fleeing violent home countries rather than as priorities for deportation.

They also say that the growing number of apprehended migrants on the border, as reflected in the new Homeland Security figures, indicate that home raids and detentions of families from Central America isn’t working as a deterrent.”

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

The “enforcement only” approach to forced migration from Central America has been an extraordinarily expensive total failure. But, the misguided attempt to “prioritize” cases of families seeking refuge from violence has been a major contributing factor in creating docket disfunction (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in the United States Immigration Courts. And, as a result, cases ready for trial that should have been heard as scheduled in Immigration Court have been “orbited” to the end of the docket where it is doubtful they ever will be reached. When political officials, who don’t understand the Immigration Court and are not committed to its due process mission, order the rearrangement of existing dockets without input from the trial judges, lawyers, court administrators, and members of the public who are most affected, only bad things can happen. And, they have!

PWS

12/31/16

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: