Nationalism – Page 45 – immigrationcourtside.com

“NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET” 🪓🔪 — MALE, PALE WHITE, & FAR RIGHT — The Clown Prince 🤡 & Moscow Mitch 👹 Have Put Together An Extreme Bench That Looks, Thinks, and Acts Nothing Like The Real America — Their Evil Specter 🧛‍♂️🧟‍♀️ Will Haunt Our Justice System For Decades To Come 💣! — Judges Should Have Demonstrated Reputations For Fairness, Scholarship, Courage, & Relevant Experience Successfully Interacting With A Broad Base Of Humanity, Not Just Reliable Right-Wing Voting Records!

The Honorable Shira Scheindlin — The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
Retired US District Judge
SDNY
Spector8745, 8/6/13, 8:58 AM, 8C, 3000×4000 (0+0), 50%, ten stop S cur, 1/12 s, R38.4, G30.1, B67.6

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/28/trump-judges-giant-step-backward-america?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin writes in The Guardian:

Whether or not he is re-elected, Donald Trump will be revered by conservatives for his judicial appointments. As of March, Trump has appointed 193 judges to the federal bench, with another 39 pending on the floor of the Senate or in the Senate judiciary committee. Those nominations will surely be acted on favorably by the Senate before 20 January 2021, when there may be a new president and a new Senate. There are another 38 district court vacancies awaiting nominations. In one presidential term, Trump may appoint up to 270 federal judges, or 31% of the entire federal judiciary. For perspective, Barack Obama appointed 329 in eight years.

There is no doubt that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, will confirm Trump’s appointments until the very last day of his term. This is of course the same Senate gatekeeper who infamously blocked Obama’s final supreme court nomination, Merrick Garland, for an entire year – on the ground that in the final year of a presidency, the Senate should await “the will of the people” in the upcoming general election. But that was then. The rules have apparently changed. McConnell will pack the courts with “right-thinking” ideologues who will carry out Trump’s agenda long after he has been subjected to the scorn of historical scrutiny.

We now know a lot about Trump’s judicial appointments. Eighty-five per cent are white and 76% are male. This is a significant step backward. Obama’s judicial appointments were 64% white and 58% male. Today, after more than three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term. Even more troubling is the average age of the Trump judges. According to Brookings, the median age of Trump’s judicial appointments by the beginning of his fourth year in office is 48.2. By the same time in his presidency, the median age of Obama’s appointees was 57.2. This means that Trump judges will serve, on average, for 10 years more than the Obama judges.

Advertisement

Hide

Statistics only tell part of the story. More important is the impact of these statistics on the critical issues that face the courts now and in the future. Courts should reflect the people they serve. I served as a federal district judge for 22 years. The vast majority of criminal defendants (in non-white-collar cases) were either African American or Hispanic, as were their family members. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases were overwhelmingly women, minorities or persons with disabilities. The same was true in actions involving prisoner rights, voting rights, housing discrimination and public benefits. Not all cases involve big corporations and business disputes.

Trump’s court takeover

This series examines the historic pace and nature of Trump’s remaking of the federal courts and the conservative agenda it will usher in on a range of issues from voting rights to climate and from healthcare to criminal justice

More from this series

A diverse bench engenders trust and credibility. Many studies have shown that decision-makers reach better decisions when they bring a variety of experiences to their analysis. A 36-year-old lawyer who has never tried a case, has not represented individual clients, and has not spent years facing life’s challenges is not well-positioned to decide on the length of a prison term, the need for access to healthcare, abortion, food stamps, Medicare or housing, or the impact of pollution or discrimination on working people’s quality of life. It is for this reason the American Bar Association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary insists that a candidate for judicial office have at least 12 years of experience practicing law – not talking about it as a speech writer, lobbyist or media star.

When I was appointed to the bench I was 48. I had been a federal prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and had handled many civil cases in trial and appellate courts. That experience was invaluable. I knew both the substance and procedure of federal practice. The same cannot be said of many of Trump’s nominees, whose only qualifications appear to be their consistently rightwing voting records.

Consider the following four Trump judges, all of whom were appointed in their 30s. What they have in common is not their legal experience, but their outspoken support of Trump’s political agenda. All were members of the Federalist Society or other rightwing organizations, clerked for conservative judges, and have written articles or advocated for legal positions that are vastly out of step with most Americans.

Allison Rushing was 36 when she was confirmed to a seat on the fourth circuit court of appeals, 11 years after graduating from law school, and Trump’s youngest nominee to a circuit court judgeship. She clerked for then-circuit judge Neil Gorsuch and for Justice Clarence Thomas. Her law practice during the remaining nine years was limited to representing big corporations at one of the nation’s largest law firms.

Andrew Brasher was 38 when he was confirmed to a seat on the 11th circuit court of appeals, after serving for only nine months on the district court for the middle district of Alabama. In the years just before his appointment he served as Alabama’s solicitor general, often advocating for rightwing causes.

Advertisement

Hide

Justin Walker, best known for his full-throated defense of Brett Kavanaugh (for whom he clerked), was appointed as a district judge in the western district of Kentucky, at 37, just 10 years after graduating law school. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell, who held up debate on a Covid-19 relief bill to attend Walker’s induction ceremony. Less than six months after Walker took the bench, Trump announced that he intended to nominate him for an upcoming vacancy on the DC court of appeals.

Patrick Wyrick was 38 when he was confirmed as a judge for the western district of Oklahoma. Four years after graduating law school he became the solicitor general of Oklahoma. He is a protege of Scott Pruitt, the disgraced former head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of these judges could easily end up on the supreme court; two are known to be on the shortlist. All will probably still be on the bench 40 years from now. That alone should make voters think hard about the upcoming presidential election. As the saying goes: elections have consequences.

Shira A Scheindlin served as a United States district judge for the southern district of New York for 22 years. She is the co-chair of the Board of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a board member of the American Constitution Society

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

I’ve been preaching on “Courtside” for some time now about the serious deterioration of America’s Article III Judiciary in the face of Trump’s tyranny. While there are some notable exceptions among appointees of both parties, even some of the “non-Trump appointees” have done a less than heroic job of standing up for Due Process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and human rights, particularly when it comes to vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers, some children, being abused by a system that just no longer cares.

Witness the clearly unconstitutional and essentially unconscionable abuse and open mockery of the American Justice system, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity going on every day in our broken and dysfunctional U.S. Immigration “Courts” that betray and sometimes mock the most fundamental of American values.

Any Article III Judge personally subjected to the kind of intentional dehumanization (a/k/a/ “Dred Scottification”) and disrespect going on daily in Immigration Court would be outraged! But, that outrage seems to disappear when the grotesque abuses are only being inflicted on “the other.” Since, according to Trump and his cronies, the majority of Americans are “the other” — in some way or another — this abdication of judicial integrity has ominous implications far beyond the “world of immigration” — where those mistreated often get deported so their voices can no longer be heard!

While, yes, the Administration frequently gets bashed by some U.S. District Courts and some Circuits, we’re only getting at the “tip of the iceberg” for a system that is allowed to grind out unfair and substandard results and where far too many are simply railroaded out of the country without fair access to lawyers, Article III judicial review, and even time to prepare their cases or understand what they are required to prove to save their lives.

Emboldened by judicial intransigence and fecklessness, the Administration has now “one-upped” the complicit Article IIIs by simply unilaterally, and without legislation, cutting off access to even the Immigration Courts while the “J.R. Five” nods approval like a bunch of “judicial bobbleheads” gracing Stephen Miller’s mantle.

No, we can’t change life tenure. But, we can elect a President and a Senate majority committed to a diverse Federal Judiciary that will put excellence, due process, equal justice, human rights, and human understanding and empathy before far-right ideology. That’s an important start on fighting back and taking the challenge directly to those now on the bench who are committed to dehumanizing, degrading, and ignoring the rights of those who comprise the real America.

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

PWS

04-29-20

ANOTHER BIG DUE PROCESS VICTORY: 3rd. Cir. Reaffirms That Due Process Applies Equally To Discretionary Relief, Finds BIA Screwed Up “Ineffective Assistance Claim,” Rejects OIL’s Attack On Due Process — Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-ineffective-assistance-calderon-rosas-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

27 Apr 2020

ineffective assistance

CA3 on Ineffective Assistance: Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

“Immigration law is a field in which fair, accurate factfinding is of critical importance. The need in immigration proceedings for effective attorneys who can competently marshal the evidence on each side is therefore of commensurate importance. Yet aliens—often poor, often non-English speaking—are disproportionately saddled with low-quality counsel, and the consequences can be drastic. This is a case in point. Petitioner Sergio Calderon-Rosas paid a now-disbarred attorney to represent him in removal proceedings, and Calderon-Rosas was ordered deported after that attorney failed to present key evidence supporting his application for cancellation of removal. Calderon-Rosas sought a new hearing, arguing that he was deprived of due process by, among other things, his attorney’s ineffective assistance, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his claims. We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to review due process claims where a petitioner, like Calderon-Rosas, seeks only discretionary relief—and if so, whether Calderon-Rosas’s claims have merit. Because we conclude that we have jurisdiction and Calderon-Rosas plainly presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.”

[Hats off to Petra D. Fist!]

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

Get the full decision at the link.

Panel: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE, and RESTREPO,

Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Judge Krause

Here’s my favorite quote from court’s unanimous opinion written by Circuit Judge Krause:

The government’s argument, however, is one we have squarely rejected. We long ago recognized that due process claims can be asserted by petitioners seeking discretionary relief because “Congress instructed the Attorney General to establish an asylum procedure,” and “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (addressing asylum claim). “[F]airness,” we explained, “mandate[s] that the asylum procedure promulgated by the Attorney General provide the most basic of due process.” Id.; see also Cham v. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 691 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough Cham has no constitutional right to asylum, he was entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.”); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 373–74

8

(3d Cir. 2003) (“Ponce–Leiva’s brief . . . suggests that counsel’s ineffectiveness was a denial of due process. Accordingly, we may analyze the claim, at least within the parameters of due process.”).

More recently, in Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney General, 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017), in exercising jurisdiction over claims for discretionary relief, we reiterated that “petitioners must receive a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf, and a decision on the merits of their claim by a neutral and impartial arbiter.” Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural due process right, we explained, is comprised of “three key protections” in immigration proceedings: “(1) ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her’; (2) the opportunity to ‘make arguments on his or her own behalf’; and (3) ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’” Id. (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc)). In short, “[t]hroughout all phases of deportation proceedings, petitioners must be afforded due process of law.” Id.

So true. Yet, so often ignored in practice by the Supremes and Circuit Courts.

The current Immigration “Court” system is run by a politically biased enforcement official, Billy Barr, who solely controls judicial appointments, job retention, sets so-called “performance standards” intentionally weighted toward DHS Enforcement’s needs, establishes binding “precedents,” and changes results favorable to asylum seekers and other respondents when they don’t suit his nativist agenda. In this system, no respondent is receiving a “fundamentally fair hearing” before a “fair and impartial decision maker.”

Even if an Immigration Judge tries to act fairly in an individual case, as many do, they are still bound by the Attorney General’s pro-enforcement policies, and the specter of arbitrary reversal of results favorable to the respondent by so-called “certification” by the AG hangs over and materially compromises the entire system and every proceeding.

Indeed, by concentrating only on the small, and somewhat random, sampling of “petitions for review” that actually cross their desks, the Courts of Appeals and the Supremes are ignoring the systemic lack of fundamental due process that infects this entire dysfunctional and unfair system. Time to wake up and do the right thing!

Nice words are one thing. Actions an entirely different matter!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-20

Alex Nowrasteh @ The National Interest: The Trump-Miller “Rationale” For Their So-Called “Immigration Ban” Is The Usual Nativist BS — Actually, Migrants To The US Don’t Threaten Your Health, Job, Or Wages, But White Nationalist Malarkey Dims Our Future! — Sadly, New Poll Shows Majority Supports Latest Round Of Immigrant Bashing!

https://apple.news/A_TYTiiUWPDyeXNykbPNZtQ

Here’s three reasons why.

by Alex Nowrasteh

President Trump recently said that there were two reasons for virtually halting all immigration to the United States in response to COVID-19. The first was to prevent the spread of the disease domestically. The second was to save American jobs for American citizens. We’ve already analyzed the first claim, this post will look at whether reducing immigration further will help save jobs for Americans. The answer is no.

Unemployment is spiking during the COVID-19 crisis. Americans are reacting to the virus by changing their economic behavior by working at home where possible, spending less time in dense public places, and in numerous other ways that result in less economic activity – sometimes voluntarily and sometimes in response to government shelter in place orders. As a result, employment is falling. In this situation, many pundits are arguing that further restricting immigration will preserve jobs for American citizens. Further restrictions will have no such impact. I’ve written much about the economic effects of immigration before, but here are some big takeaway points related to the recent immigration ban:

First, immigrants come to the United States primarily because of economic opportunity. Even those coming today on green cards intended for family‐ reunification are primarily coming to reunite with family members who, at one point in the chain, came for economic reasons. If the benefits of coming to the United States are greater than the costs (psychological costs, cost of moving, opportunity cost, danger of migrating, etc.), then many people will do so.

The biggest benefit of coming to the United States is higher wages, which are higher here because immigrant workers have a greater marginal value product (MVP=the number of goods produced by a worker multiplied by the market price for those goods). That means that immigrants are more productive here than in their home countries, so they supply more goods and services that are sold at higher prices. The amazing thing about demand for labor is that it is entirely determined by the worker’s MVP.

Economists Michael Clemens, Claudio Montenegro, and Lant Pritchett estimate the place premium, which is the estimated wage benefit of moving to the United States adjusting for the cost of living through a measurement called purchasing power parity (PPP). For example, they estimate that a working age Mexican male with 9–12 years of education who was educated in his home country can expect a 2.6-fold increase in his wages. That’s an enormous gain.

Immigration slows during a recession because the number of jobs decreases and, oftentimes, wages also adjust or their growth slows. Thus, the big benefit of immigrating to the United States evaporates for many immigrants during a recession. Immigration falls during recessions because immigrants benefit less from coming here, but natives benefit less too so the government also typically responds by increasing immigration enforcement. Less commonly, the government restricts legal immigration like President Herbert Hoover did in 1929 at the beginning of the Great Depression. The flow of illegal immigrants into the United States changes most dramatically during a recession as they’re the most economically sensitive immigrants.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

For what it’s worth, Alex’s findings match my “anecdotal observations” over more than a decade at the U.S. Immigration Court. During the earlier recession and its aftermath, other than asylum applicants, more migrants appearing at my “Master Calendar” told me that they did not want to fight their cases and just wanted to “go home,” either voluntarily or at USG expense under a “final order.” As the US economy improved, the number of non-detained individuals agreeing to voluntary departure or “taking a final order” appeared to decrease.

While, as Alex acknowledges, immigration is not “totally market driven,” particularly for those fleeing persecution, we certainly would do better as a nation to design a robust legal immigration system that worked in harmony with market forces, rather than directly against them as has too often been the case.

Generally, markets are going to be a more effective and efficient regulators of immigration than expensive, coercive, and often ineffective, “maximum enforcement.”

Indeed, when our economy was “booming,” unemployment was low, and most of the estimated 10-11 million “undocumented individuals” in the U.S. were staying out of trouble, minding their own business, employed or studying, and contributing to our economic success. The trouble was not “failed enforcement,” as the White Nationalists like to claim, but rather a failed legal immigration system that should have found ways that these individuals who form an important part of our society could have been pre-screened and admitted legally in the first place. That also would have diminished the allure of human smugglers and facilitated even greater contributions to our tax base. The answer to a clearly failed and counterproductive policy is not to double down on its cruelest and most futile aspects — unfocused enforcement,

Even in cases where immediate immigraton isn’t possible, if there is a “real line” for legal immigration (not the bogus one invented by the nativists) and it progressed reasonably and predictably, most individuals would use it. In my experience, most immigrants and employers would much prefer to use the legal system, even if it has some delays and costs, if it presents a realistic and not-cost-prohibitive alternative to “extralegal” or “black market” migration.

If we are to continue to succeed as a nation, at some point, we must stop listening to the voices of the Trumps, Millers, Sessionses, Cuccinellis, Barrs and other White Nationalist bigots urging us to “return to the failed policies of the past” and instead develop a forward looking immigration and refugee system that sees migrants for what they are: an important and necessary element of our nation and our world. It’s the right and smart thing for a “nation of immigrants” to do.

The bad news: Despite its counterfactual basis and appeal to xenophobia and racism, the “temporary” immigration ban has widespread public support, according to today’s Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-support-state-restrictions-on-businesses-and-halt-to-immigration-during-virus-outbreak-post-u-md-poll-finds/2020/04/27/763249ee-88af-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html

So, expect the ban to last indefinitely and to increase in scope regardless of what happens with COVID-19. Xenophobia, racism, and appeals to White Nationalism are once likely to be the centerpiece of Trump’s reelection strategy, particularly with the economy in ruins.

PWS

04-27-20

THE UGLY SIDE OF HISTORY: AMERICA CONTINUES TO TREAT ITS ESSENTIAL MIGRANT WORKERS AS “SUB-HUMAN” — “We cannot help what the virus does; all we can control is our reaction to it, and what we do next. This pandemic has shone a light on the ugliness of our “here.” Until the US treats all its immigrants as human beings, with full equal rights, we will still be far from ‘there,’” writes Maeve Higgins in the New York Review of Books.

https://apple.news/Ay-5bxf63ML-TZgioC-ixQA

Higgins writes:

While corporations are going on life support thanks to this huge government bailout, undocumented immigrants and their families, among them US citizens, are being allowed to suffer, to starve, and, without access to health care, perhaps even to die. As things already stood, undocumented immigrants were ineligible for any federally funded public health insurance programs. On top of that, the millions who have tax IDs, so that they can work without formal authorization, are now denied help in the form of unemployment benefits—they are the only US taxpayers excluded from the coronavirus stimulus package.

. . . .

It’s also troubling to single out immigrants because of the historic scapegoating of immigrants during other health crises. The historian Alan M. Kraut writes that in the 1830s, Irish immigrants were stigmatized as bearers of cholera, and at the end of the nineteenth century, tuberculosis was dubbed the “Jewish disease.” Scapegoating also obscures a longer thread in a bigger pattern, regardless of which party or administration is in power. According to Professor Viladrich, the American government’s denying assistance to this group of working immigrants is the historic norm.

“A lot of this is related to a labor force that is disposable,” she said. “There is no contradiction here; it is very consistent with ACA, with welfare reform, all of that. The systematic exclusion of immigrants is parallel with the systematic exploitation of immigrants.”

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, lobbied hard to ensure that people without work authorization would be excluded from the CARES Act. On the Senate floor, he spoke against child tax credit going to people without social security numbers:

If you want to apply for money from the government through the child tax credit program, then you have to be a legitimate person… It has nothing to do with not liking immigrants. It has to do with saying, taxpayer money shouldn’t go to non-people.

His office later said he was referring to people who fraudulently claimed a child in order to reap the federal benefit. Whatever he meant by “legitimate person” and “non-people,” the effect was the same: in the eyes of the law, undocumented immigrants would be non-people.

Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, used the term “bare life” to describe a life reduced to plain biological facts, the robbing of a person’s political existence by those who have the power to define who is included as a worthy human being and who is excluded. While the labor of undocumented people is gladly accepted, their humanity has been tidily erased by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

The immigration and legal historian Daniel Kanstroom reminds us that in times of trouble, like wars or national emergencies, immigrants are the first to get thrown overboard. It was in part due to the ban on Chinese immigrants back in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century that the demand for Mexican workers increased dramatically. In his 2007 book Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History, Kanstroom explained how this ban combined with wartime labor needs in 1917 led to the US government’s systematic recruitment of Mexican workers: “From 1917 through 1921, an estimated 50,000–80,000 Mexican farm workers entered the United States under this program, establishing a legal model and cultural mindset that endured for decades to come.”

Kanstroom cites a line from the 1911 Dillingham Commission, an extensive bipartisan investigation into immigration, that “The Mexican… is less desirable as a citizen than as a laborer.” The precedent was set, and what followed was a cycle of recruitment, restriction, and expulsion. More than one million people of Mexican ancestry were forcibly removed from the United States during the Depression years. Some of the people deported by the government to Mexico were US citizens, but then as now, because of their undocumented relatives, they were subject to the same brutal treatment.

In 1942, as a wartime labor shortage loomed, the US worked out an agreement with Mexico for short-term, low-wage workers to fill in the gap. The Bracero Program, as it was known, continued until 1964, with some 4.5 million Mexican workers legally entering the country during those years. There were enormous contradictions in the way those workers were treated: ad hoc legalization programs designed to help big farmers took place at some times; then, at others, there were huge deportation drives when the demand for labor fell off—most notoriously, the terrifying round-ups of 1954’s so-called Operation Wetback.

According to the scholar of migration Nicholas De Genova, “It is precisely their distinctive legal vulnerability, their putative ‘illegality’ and official ‘exclusion,’ that inflames the irrepressible desire and demand for undocumented migrants as a highly exploitable workforce—and thus ensures their enthusiastic importation and subordinate incorporation.” It is no mistake that there remain millions of “illegal” workers of Latino ethnicity contributing their labor, taxes, and humanity to this country; it suits America very well in the good times, and always has.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Maev’s outstanding analysis of our sordid history of abusing essential immigrant workers, from enslaved African Americans, to Chinese laborers, to Latino workers who have been propping up our economy and keeping us alive during the time of pandemic. Their reward: dehumanization, degradation, deportation without due process, and sometimes death.

I speak often at Courtside about how Trump’s self-righteous, immoral, scofflaw White Nationalist cabal — folks like Miller, Bannon, Sessions, Barr, Cuccinelli, Paul — have been engineering a vile “Dred Scottification” program to dehumanize, abuse, and exploit the most vulnerable, yet often most essential, among us.

I have also highlighted how the Trump kakistocracy’s efforts to create an extralegal, unconstitutional “Reincarnation of Jim Crow” too often have been supported and encouraged by some of those highly privileged Supreme Court Justices whose job was supposed to be protecting all of us, and particularly the most vulnerable persons, from invidious Executive abuses: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

The latest example: In the middle of humanitarian trauma, the “socially distant Justices” managed to find time for a little gratuitous cruelty: denying an application to stay the regime’s irrational, racist, and unlawful “public charge rules” that threaten the lives and safety of immigrants, their U.S. citizen families, and U.S. society as a whole. https://apple.news/ABNL4e_DtRPS4eN5m5gx1ug

Amy Howe writes at Scotusblog:

Under federal immigration law, noncitizens cannot receive a green card if the government believes that they are likely to become reliant on government assistance. The dispute now before the court arose last year, after the Trump administration defined “public charge” to refer to noncitizens who receive various government benefits, such as health care, for more than 12 months over a three-year period. The challengers had argued that the rule is “impeding efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus, preserve scarce hospital capacity and medical supplies, and protect the lives of everyone in the community” because it deters immigrants from seeking testing and treatment for the virus out of fear that it will endanger their ability to obtain a green card. The federal government countered that it has made clear that the use of publicly funded health care related to COVID-19 “will not be considered in making predictions about whether” immigrants are likely to become a public charge.

https://shar.es/aHxGIP

The Government’s argument doesn’t pass the “straight face” test. The monetary savings from this rule are minuscule; its overriding purpose was to dump on immigrant families and intimidate ethnic, primarily Hispanic, communities. It was the “brainchild” of neo-Nazi Stephen Miller. What greater proof could there be of its White Nationalist purpose? Given the regime’s well-established record of lies and unbridled hostility toward immigrants and communities of color, why would anyone have confidence in the regime’s often hollow or disingenuous “promises?”

Those of us who believe in honoring our immigrant heritage, making our constitutional guarantees reality rather than unfulfilled promises, that human values, empathy, and kindness matter, and that we can and must do better than shallow, often outright evil, folks like Trump, Miller, Cuccinelli, Roberts, Barr, et al. need to retake our Government at the ballot box this November and build a better, fairer, more humane future for America and all persons in our country.

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

PWS

04-27-20

ERIN CORCORAN @ THE HILL: RACISM, BIGOTRY, & XENOPHOBIA ARE ALWAYS BAD POLICIES — The Pandemic Is No Exception — “Immigrants are part of the solution to the challenges we face today and should be welcomed rather than banned.”

https://apple.news/AKgOx97sDRfSvo9oc3h61cA

The use of executive branch power to wage a war on immigrants is one of the defining legacies of President Trump. He went on the offensive under the disguise of the coronavirus pandemic to advance his policy priority to significantly restrict legal immigration to the United States. This politically motivated maneuver violates federal and international law, and this is also morally reprehensible and disastrous for the domestic economy at home.

. . . .

It is not just health care that needs immigrants. A recent study found that the majority of economic growth between 2011 and 2016 is due to greater labor supply due to immigration. Immigrants also assist the country with innovation. They are twice as likely to start a business, to receive a Nobel Prize or Academy Award, or to receive a patent than native born workers.

Denying protection to individuals fleeing persecution based on potential public health grounds sends dangerous signals to oppressors and rogue nations that they are free to act with impunity because powerful nations are unwilling to protect their victims. Refugees searching for protection are built in the collective responsibility of the international community, even in any period of public crisis. Efforts by the president to renounce these duties are morally wrong and politically dangerous for the world.

Waging a war on immigrants will not protect us from the coronavirus. It instead puts individuals fleeing harm in further danger and weakens the economy of the United States. Immigrants are part of the solution to the challenges we face today and should be welcomed rather than banned.

.

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

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

The Clown Prince’s 🤡 “maliciously incompetent” ☠️ response to the coronavirus pandemic 🤮 continues to be one of the most stunning failures of Presidential leadership in U.S. history — one that will continue to put American lives at risk well into the future.

Unhappily, cowardly bashing of immigrants and constantly sending out racist “dog whistles” helped this charlatan get elected and remains one of the few things he’s good at (grifting, lying, and avoiding responsibility are others).

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

PWS

04-26-20

LEE SUNDAY EVANS @ WATERWELL: “The Power of Transcripts”— “It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

FYI, an essay by Waterwell Artistic Director Lee Sunday Evans on the company’s immigration law related work. Best, Jeff

https://howlround.com/power-transcripts

The Power of Transcripts

In July 2019, I sat down with a few people at the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School to discuss the possibility of bringing a performance of The Courtroom: a re-enactment of one woman’s deportation proceedings—a production by the New York City–based theatre company Waterwell, where I’m artistic director—to their campus. Fast forward thirty minutes and Elora Mukherjee—the director of the clinic, an immigration lawyer and professor—had our attention focused in a different direction.

Elora was describing her work as a monitor for the Flores Settlement Agreement—a court settlement that sets the time limit and conditions under which children can be held in immigration detention—over the past twelve years; two weeks earlier, she had provided testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about the deplorable conditions she and her colleagues had witnessed in two immigration detention facilities in Clint and Ursula, Texas. Then, Elora politely declined to bring The Courtroom to Columbia Law School—at least for the time being—and asked if Waterwell would consider making a new project using first-person testimonies of the children and young parents she had met at the border.

I’ll start at the beginning of our company’s engagement with immigration and then describe The Flores Exhibits—the project Waterwell created in response to this conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Courtroom. Photo by Miguel Amortegui

The Courtroom

In the summer of 2018, Arian Moayed—an actor, writer, director, and co-founder of Waterwell—was watching, along with the rest of the United States, as an increasingly heated debate about immigration enveloped our country. Family separations at the border and the uproar that followed flooded the news, along with stories about how increasingly rapid deportation proceedings were compromising due process. Arian was born in Iran, immigrated here when he was seven years old, and became a citizen when he was twenty-six. The stories of how the United States was treating immigrants hit him personally.

He thought: How can Waterwell respond? What can we do to add something meaningful to this conversation?

Then a new question crystallized in his mind: We hear about them in the media, but what does a deportation proceeding in court actually look like? How do deportation proceedings work?

While reaching out to a handful of immigration lawyers and asking them to share transcripts of deportation proceedings, Arian met Richard Hanus, an immigration lawyer in Chicago, who has been practicing for over twenty-five years. Richard shared transcripts of one case he thought might be of interest, and Arian read it right away. The case was powerful.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration.

A few months later, I started as the newly appointed artistic director of Waterwell. Arian and I dove into these transcripts, did a rough edit of them, then another, then another, then an intense three-day text workshop with incredible actors, and came out with a script that had a three-act structure, with all the dialogue taken entirely from the court transcripts.

We asked Jeffrey S. Chase, a former immigration judge and widely respected leader in the field, to help us understand legal terms in the transcripts and to advise us on how to make most accurate representation of immigration court. He made a terrific recommendation: Go watch some proceedings.

We met at 26 Federal Plaza, went through the metal detectors, and headed up to the floors where proceedings take place. The courtrooms are small, with drop ceilings. There are no witness boxes and there is often no lawyer representing the immigrant—if you are an immigrant required to appear in immigration court, you don’t have automatic access to legal representation. This was not news to Arian, but for me, as a person born in the United States who had never interacted with the immigration system, I found it surprising and unsettling. Immigrants represent themselves, or pay not-unsubstantial sums to hire a lawyer. Non-profits and law school clinics step in to fill this gap, but they do not—and cannot—reach everyone.

Watching court proceedings—the combination of banal procedural details and life-and-death stakes—fundamentally shaped our thinking. What we witnessed was quiet, tense, tedious, disorienting. We knew that, for our performance, we’d have to risk recreating those very dynamics. It wouldn’t be quite a play but a reenactment. As we created The Courtroom, we focused on the small, regular mistakes shown in the transcripts—awkward phrasing of a thought, the quick mistaken use of a word—embracing them as interesting windows into how people function in court when they are prepared but don’t have a script, and set out to find real courtrooms to perform in. We created the original staging in our most hallowed venue: a grand courtroom on the seventeenth floor of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, the seat of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Though this prestigious courtroom was very different from small, plain immigration courts, the architecture taught us a lot about how courtrooms work.

The Courtroom. Photo by Maria Baranova.

The transcripts we used to create the script were from the case of Elizabeth Keathley, an immigrant from the Philippines who came to the United States on a K3 visa after she married her husband, who was a United States citizen. After inadvertently registering to vote at the DMV in Bloomington, Illinois, receiving a voter registration card in the mail, and voting, Elizabeth had to appear in court for deportation hearings. She lost the first case, but her appeal was heard in the Seventh Circuit, where the federal judges ruled in her favor.

The first performances were terrifying. We had no idea if the piece would capture people’s interest and hold their attention. But we put our faith in how this case encapsulated the age-old adage about the personal and the political. Through this story about a married couple in the early stages of building their family, who had made one honest mistake that put the wife in danger of being deported, the audience got to see a portrait of our nation’s legal system that exposed its catastrophic flaws and showed its singular, profound potential.

We were floored by audiences’ responses to the performances and started to understand the real power of the transcripts.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration—a polarizing issue that seems relentlessly distorted when we encounter it in the media, something that is all the more painful because it is central to our country’s identity. Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, put it perfectly in his book, There Goes the Neighborhood: “Immigration gets at the core of who we are, and who we want to be, as a country.”

The Courtroom gave audiences an opportunity to get closer to the immigration legal system’s inner workings. Not to be told what to think, not to be told again how bad things are, but to get closer to something true and real. It was our realization about the power of unaltered transcripts that guided us when we started to think about what to make in response to our conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Flores Exhibits

We told Elora we would think deeply about how we could make a meaningful project, and she said she’d send us the testimonies. We took the conversation with her very seriously, feeling a sincere responsibility as artists to take up the need she put before us but having very little idea what we could create in response.

I printed out everything Elora sent me and sat down to read the sixty-nine testimonies. I thought: Again, here is that combination of procedural banality alongside life-and-death stakes. It unnerved me. The project needed to capture that specific disorienting, haunting aspect of the testimonies. It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.

Here’s a quick history of the FSA and why it’s important: In 1985, a fifteen-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores was held in substandard conditions in immigration detention for a prolonged period of time. Based on her experience, a number of legal organizations filed a lawsuit against the government, which in 1997 resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement. This set standards for the treatment of unaccompanied children (anyone under the age of eighteen) while they are in detention, including requiring the government to provide reasonable standards of care as well as safe and sanitary living conditions, and to release minors without any unnecessary delay, setting a cap of twenty days.

It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

The sixty-nine testimonies that Elora gave us were exhibits filed by the National Youth Law Center in a temporary restraining order requesting emergency relief for minors held in Customs and Border Patrol facilities; the firsthand accounts demonstrated violations of the Flores Settlement. Wrenching news reports about children being held in detention facilities for extended period of times—sometimes in cages—without access to basic hygiene supplies and adequate nutrition or sleep were based on these lawyers’ experiences and these testimonies.

What could we create to respond? We wanted people to experience the testimonies in full. We wanted people outside of New York City, where we’re based, to hear them. We wanted to involve actors but also all the incredible people we’d met during the process of creating The Courtroom who were not actors: lawyers, former judges, immigrant-rights advocates, immigrants who are not in the arts, and playwrights, designers, and other artists invested in this issue.

We decided not to make a piece of theatre. We decided to make a series of videos.

The testimonies would be read in full, without any textual or cinematic editing. We would ask readers from different sectors of society to participate with the hope that it would demonstrate—in a quiet, un-didactic way—a wide-ranging solidarity and investment in the issue. Each reader would sit at a simple wooden table with a glass of clean water, which is often described in the testimonies as being hard for immigrants to get in detention.

The Flores Exhibits. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kluger.

We wanted the readers to be good storytellers but I directed them not to take on any “character” they gleaned from the text or embody the experience described by the person who gave the testimony to the lawyers. We said the goal was for people to hear the words as clearly as possible—without emphasis, without dramatization.

To date, we have filmed forty-three out of the sixty-nine testimonies and are working to complete the filming of the remaining ones. This coming fall, we hope to instigate and facilitate live screenings of The Flores Exhibits around the country as a way to bolster support, organizing, and advocacy for the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement to be upheld and improved.

Taking Action

Right now, there are efforts around the country to decarcerate as many people held in jails, prisons, and detention facilities as possible due to the amplified dangers posed by COVID-19 to anyone in this kind of environment. It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

Using excerpts from videos in The Flores Exhibits, we released this ninety-second video connecting firsthand testimonies of people held in detention in June 2019 to the urgent need to get people out of detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you are interested in getting involved, here are a few ways to start:

Find out where there are detention facilities near you: local jails and prisons often have contracts with ICE, and there are dedicated ICE facilities, often in rural areas. Once you know where those facilities are in your state, follow them in the news and connect with and support local organizations and elected representatives who advocate for the release of immigrants, proper living conditions, and access to healthcare in detention. (For a full explanation of government agencies involved in immigration detention, watch this video.)
Join and amplify the efforts of Detention Watch Network, a coalition of eight hundred organizations around the country to get urgent messages to governors, ICE directors, sheriffs, and other represented officials to release people from detention during COVID-19.
Join New Sanctuary’s efforts to advocate to free unaccompanied minors held in immigration detention.
Join Freedom for Immigrants to get involved in your area.
Read the Southern Border Community Coalition’s New Border Vision so you can be part of their proactive movement to transform culture, values, and policy at our southern border.

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

Think about the grotesque perversions of justice going on in the US today! Desperate kids seeking protection and entitled to legal process being illegally held in detention as unlawful punishment and coercion in violation of U.S. Court orders.

Some of the criminals who masterminded and carried out these illegal, unethical, and totally immoral schemes not only remain free but, outrageously, are on our public payroll: Thugs like Stephen Miller, Chad Wolf, Billy Barr, and Ken Cuccinelli. “Cooch Cooch” actually continues to spew his vile propaganda after being held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed.

Another notorious human rights criminal and child abuser, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, remains at large and is outrageously running for return to the Senate, a position he already had abused and misused to promote a White Nationalist racist agenda in the past.

Still others like “Big Mac With Lies” and Kirstjen Nielsen are also at large, disingenuously trying to “reinvent” themselves by having the audacity to tout their past criminal activities, public lies, and human rights abuses as “senior executive experience.”

As these transcripts show, it’s a “world turned upside down” under the vile Trump kakistocracy. But, we all have a chance to redeem our nation in November by voting the kakistocracy out and re-establishing honesty, human values, mutual respect, cooperation, our Constitution, and the rule of law as the hallmarks of America.

On the other hand, the despicable performance by those public officials who abandoned their legal and moral obligations to humanity also shines a light on the many unsung heroes of our time: folks like Professor Elora Mukherjee, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed, Judge Jeffrey Chase, and the many other members of the New Due Process Army throughout the U.S. Unlike many of our public officials, they are standing up for Due Process and the rule of law in the face of seemingly never-ending tyranny, racism, xenophobia, and hate-mongering from the Trump regime.

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

PWS

04-26-20

DUE PROCESS/GENDER-BASED ASYLUM WINS: 1st Cir. Slams BIA, Sessions’s Matter of A-B- Atrocity – Remands For Competent Adjudication of Gender-Based Asylum Claim — DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR

DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR, 1^st Cir., 04-24-20, published

OLBD OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING

PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Kayetta

KEY EXCERPTS (Courtesy of Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire, Gibson Dunn, Pro Bono Counsel for the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges as Amici):

[The BIA] added, however, that “[e]ven if [De Pena] had

suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution,” De Pena’s

proposed particular social groups are analogous to those in Matter

of A-R-C-G, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which the BIA

understood to have been “overruled” by the Attorney General in

Matter of A-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 319 (A.G. 2018). The BIA read

A-B as “determin[ing] that the particular social group of ‘married

women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ did

not meet the legal standards to qualify as a valid particular

social group.”

…

That conclusion poses two questions to be resolved on

this appeal: First, does A-B categorically reject any social group

defined in material part by its members’ “inability to leave” the

relationships in which they are being persecuted; and, second, if

so, is A-B to that extent consistent with the law?

…

Is it reasonable to read the law as supporting such a categorical

rejection of any group defined by its members’ inability to leave

relationships with their abusers? A-B itself cites only fiat to

support its affirmative answer to this question. It presumes that

the inability to leave is always caused by the persecution from

which the noncitizen seeks haven, and it presumes that no type of

persecution can do double duty, both helping to define the

particular social group and providing the harm blocking the pathway

to that haven. These presumptions strike us as arbitrary on at

least two grounds.

….

First, a woman’s inability to leave a relationship may

be the product of forces other than physical abuse. In

Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions, we distinguished a putative group of

women defined by their attempt “to escape systemic and severe

violence” from a group defined as “married women in Guatemala who

are unable to leave their relationship,” describing only the former

as defined by the persecution of its members. 881 F.3d 61, 67

(1st Cir. 2018). In fact, the combination of several cultural,

societal, religious, economic, or other factors may in some cases

explain why a woman is unable to leave a relationship.

…

We therefore do not see any basis other

than arbitrary and unexamined fiat for categorically decreeing

without examination that there are no women in Guatemala who

reasonably feel unable to leave domestic relationships as a result

of forces other than physical abuse. In such cases, physical abuse

might be visited upon women because they are among those unable to

leave, even though such abuse does not define membership in the group

of women who are unable to leave.

…

Second, threatened physical abuse that precludes

departure from a domestic relationship may not always be the same

in type or quality as the physical abuse visited upon a woman

within the relationship. More importantly, we see no logic or

reason behind the assertion that abuse cannot do double duty, both

helping to define the group, and providing the basis for a finding

of persecution. An unfreed slave in first century Rome might well

have been persecuted precisely because he had been enslaved (making

him all the same unable to leave his master). Yet we see no reason

why such a person could not seek asylum merely because the threat

of abuse maintained his enslaved status. As DHS itself once

observed, the “sustained physical abuse of [a] slave undoubtedly

could constitute persecution independently of the condition of

slavery.” Brief of DHS at 34 n.10, Matter of R-A, 23 I. & N. Dec.

694 (A.G. 2005).

For these reasons, we reject as arbitrary and unexamined

the BIA holding in this case that De Pena’s claim necessarily fails

because the groups to which she claims to belong are necessarily

deficient. Rather, the BIA need consider, at least, whether the

proffered groups exist and in fact satisfy the requirements for

constituting a particular social group to which De Pena belongs.

Amer S. Ahmed

GIBSON DUNN

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

Read the full opinion at the link above.

While Judge Kayetta does not specifically cite our Round Table’s brief, a number of our arguments are reflected in the opinion. Undoubtedly, with lots of help from Amer and our other superstar friends over at Gibson Dunn, we’re continuing to make a difference and hopefully save some deserving lives of the refugees intentionally screwed by our dysfunctional Immigration Court system under a politicized DOJ.

I’ve heard of the bogus rationale used by the BIA in this case reflected in a number of wrongly decided unpublished asylum denials by both the BIA and Immigration Judges. This should make for plenty of remands, slowing down the “Deportation Railroad,” jacking up the backlog, and once again showing the “substantial downside” of idiotic “haste makes waste shenanigans” at EOIR and allowing biased, unqualified White Nationalist hacks like Sessions and Barr improperly to interfere with what are supposed to be fair and impartial adjudications consistent with Due Process and fundamental fairness.

Great as this decision is, it begs the overriding issue: Why is a non-judicial political official, particularly one with as strong a prosecutorial bias as Sessions or Barr, allowed to intervene in a quasi-judicial decision involving an individual and not only reverse the result of that quasi-judicial tribunal, but also claim to set a “precedent” that is binding in other quasi-judicial proceedings? Clearly, neither Ms. De Pena-Paniagua nor any other respondent subject to a final order of removal under this system received the “fair and impartial decision by an unbiased decision-maker” which is a minimum requirement under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Let’s put it in terms that an Article III Circuit Court Judge should understand. Suppose Jane Q. Public sues the United States in U.S. District Court in Boston and wins a judgment. Unhappy with the result, Attorney General Billy Barr orders the U.S. District Judge to send the case to him for review. He enters a decision reversing the U.S. District Judge and dismissing Public’s claim against the United States. Then, he orders all U.S. District Judges in the District of Massachusetts to follow his decision and threatens to have them removed from their positions or demoted to non-judicial positions if they refuse.

The First Circuit or any other Court of Appeals would be outraged by this result and invalidate it as unconstitutional in a heartbeat! They likely would also find Barr in contempt and refer him to state bar authorities with a recommendation that his law license be revoked or suspended.

Yet this is precisely what happened to Ms. A-B-, Ms. De Pena Paniagua, and thousands of other asylum applicants in Immigration Court. It happens every working day in Immigration Courts throughout the nation. It will continue to happen until Article III Appellate Judges live up to their oaths of fealty to the Constitution and stop the outrageous, life-threatening miscarriages of justice and human dignity going on in our unconstitutional, illegal, fundamentally unfair, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-24-20

🏴‍☠️BRING IT ON! – “Moscow Mitch” 🇷🇺 Throws Down The Gauntlet, Challenges Trump For “Vilest Pol In America” 🤮☠️ — Can He Beat A Guy Who Uses The “Bully’s Pulpit” To Encourage Americans To Drink & Inject Poison? ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️ — Nobel Prize 🏆 Winning Economist Paul Krugman @ NY Times Tells Us How “MM” Can Go Even Lower: “So yes, McConnell’s position is stupid. But it’s also vile.”

Paul Krugman
American Economist, Columnist, & Nobel Prize Winner

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/mcconnell-coronavirus-states.html

Krugman writes, in part, in the NYT:

. . . .

So yes, McConnell’s position is stupid. But it’s also vile.

Think of who would be hurt if state and local governments are forced to make drastic cuts. A lot of state money goes to Medicaid, a program that should be expanding, not shrinking, as millions of Americans are losing their health insurance along with their jobs.

As for the state and local government workers who may be either losing their jobs or facing pay cuts, most are employed in education, policing, firefighting and highways. So if McConnell gets his way, America’s de facto policy will be one of bailing out the owners of giant restaurant chains while firing schoolteachers and police officers.

Last but not least, let’s talk about McConnell’s hypocrisy, which like his stupidity comes on multiple levels.

At one level, it’s really something to see a man who helped ram through a giant tax cut for corporations — which they mainly used to buy back their own stock — now pretend to be deeply concerned about borrowing money to help states facing a fiscal crisis that isn’t their fault.

At another level, it’s also really something to see McConnell, whose state is heavily subsidized by the federal government, give lectures on self-reliance to states like New York that pay much more in federal taxes than they get back.

We’re not talking about small numbers here. According to estimates by the Rockefeller Institute, from 2015 to 2018 Kentucky — which pays relatively little in federal taxes, because it’s fairly poor, but gets major benefits from programs like Medicare and Social Security — received net transfers from Washington averaging more than $33,000 per person. That was 18.6 percent of the state’s G.D.P.

True, relatively rich states like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut probably should be helping out their poorer neighbors — but those neighbors don’t then get the right to complain about “blue state bailouts” in the face of a national disaster.

Of course, McConnell has an agenda here: He’s hoping to use the pandemic to force afflicted states to shrink their governments. We can only hope both that this shameless exploitation of tragedy fails and that McConnell and his allies pay a heavy political price.

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

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

Have we all just been transported to “Jonestown 1978” ☠︎⚰️☠️⚰️?” Is our “Clown Prince” 🤡 actually the reincarnation of Rev. Jim Jones 🏴‍☠️?

Tired of being in the “Blue Majority” supporting “Red America” while excluded from control of our National Government? Tired of a Government of self-centered grifters — incapable of governing responsibly and in the public interest, but great at lining their pockets and those of their fat cat backers? Tired of an “Amateur Night at the Bijou” foreign policy that diminishes our nation and makes us the laughingstock the world? Tired of dealing with dirty water, polluted air, and crumbling bridges while the “Chief Clown” 🤡 sharpens his golf game? Tired of a kakistocracy that’s also a kelptocracy 💸 and practices nepotism? Tired of expensive health care that too often doesn’t improve the health of our nation? Tired of wages stagnating and benefits disappearing while the stock market goes bonkers and execs and shareholders get big payouts? Tired of lousy, anti-democracy judges 👨‍⚖️ who advance the interests of corporations, guns, and the GOP over the rights and dignity of individuals under our laws? Tired of paying the salaries of Neo-Nazi bigots like Stephen Miller? Tired of funding the “Afternoon Clown Show” 🤡 from the White House every day and dealing with its never-ending stream of dangerous ☠️ lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications?

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out!

This November, send the “Clown Prince” 🤡, MM 🤮, and the rest of their anti-American party of disunity, incompetence, disorder, cruelty, stupidity, racism, and grift packing! Vote like your life depends on it! Because, it does!

PWS

04-24-20

LAW YOU CAN USE: Denise Hammond, Esquire, @ Grossman Young & Hammond With All You Really Need To Know About Trump’s Bogus Executive Order “Banning” Immigration! — It’s A Racist Diversion, But Still Another Blow To Democracy!

BLY EO MH dch FINAL

By Denise Hammond, Senior Counsel, Grossman Young, and Hammond:

4922 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 240.403.0913

8737 Colesville Road, Suite 500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301.917.6900

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER SUSPENDING IMMIGRATION:

WHAT IT COVERS AND HOW IT DISTRACTS FROM EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

On Monday, April 20, 2020, Donald Trump tweeted that he would be “

Who is Barred by the Order?

The Order is relatively short and bars the following foreign nationals from immigrating permanently to the United States:

• Foreign Nationals Overseas Who Lack an Immigrant Visa or Green Card. With the exceptions discussed below, the Order applies to foreign nationals who do not have an immigrant visa or green card. Unless you are covered by an exception, you are barred from entering the United States as an immigrant even if you are processing, or planning to process, an immigrant visa at a US consul abroad. These visas could be through employment sponsorship, family sponsorship, or the Diversity Visa (DV) green card lottery as discussed below.

• Foreign nationals outside the United States. The Order only applies to individuals who were outside the US on April 23d, the date of issuance. Presumably, someone in the United States on that day could go home today, apply for an immigrant visa at the US Consulate there, and not be barred by the Order.

Who is Not Barred by the Order?

• Anyone in the United States on April 23. This bears repeating. If you are in the United States, you remain eligible to adjust your status to lawful permanent residence or, presumably, to apply for an immigrant visa abroad (discussed below).

1 The Order is entitled

signing an Executive Order

to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!” This caused great consternation and

confusion among immigrants and their families, US businesses, and the immigration bar. On April

23d, Mr. Trump issued his Order.1 Now that we’ve had a chance to review it, we want to break it

down and explain who it does and does not cover, how it does nothing to make us safer or

strengthen the economy, and how it is another log on the anti-immigrant fire and a thinly-veiled

distraction from the lack of effective leadership to actually combat the Coronavirus.

“Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market

During the Economic Recovery Following the Covid-19 Outbreak

• Nonimmigrants. It is very important to note that the Order does not prevent nonimmigrants from entering the United States. As explained below, nonimmigrants are foreign nationals who enter the United States on a temporary basis and lack intent and permission to remain permanently.

• Anyone with an Immigrant Visa. You can immigrate if you already have an immigrant visa. An explanation of the green card process is helpful to understand this exception.

The Immigrant Visa (Green Card) Process. The process typically begins when the sponsor (e.g. an employer or US Citizen spouse) files an immigrant visa petition in the United States asking the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find that the foreign national beneficiary satisfies the requirements for classification in a certain immigrant category, such as an outstanding researcher or the spouse of a US Citizen. On approval, when the beneficiary reaches the front of the visa waiting line (or if there is no line), he or she applies for permission to immigrate either through “adjustment of status” or “consular processing.” If the beneficiary is in the United States, in H-1B visa status for instance, s/he can apply to USCIS to “adjust” his or her status to lawful permanent residence. On approval, s/he will receive a green card. If the beneficiary is overseas, however, s/he must apply to the US Consulate in his or her home country for an immigrant visa. On approval, s/he will be granted an immigrant visa, can be physically admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident and will soon get a green card in the mail.

Anyone who is overseas and already has received an immigrant visa is exempt from the Order and can immigrate. (But keep in mind that the immigrant visa must be used within 6 months of issuance, which can be a problem given current global travel restrictions).

• Lawful Permanent Residents. The Order also does not apply to you if you already have a green card, lawful permanent residence or, as noted, an immigrant visa.

• US Military Members. If you are a member of the US military (or the spouse or child of a servicemember), the Order doesn’t apply to you.

• Healthcare Workers. The Order doesn’t apply to anyone overseas (and most immediate family members) who seeks an immigrant visa:

 as a doctor, nurse or other healthcare professional

 to perform COVID19 research

 to perform work essential to combating or helping patients with COVID19.

• Job Creation Investors. The Order does not apply to anyone who has an approved “EB-5” petition. This visa category if for foreign nationals who invest $1 million (or less in economically depressed areas) in projects that will create jobs for US workers.

• Special Immigrants. The Order does not apply to anyone certain individuals who see to immigrate under USCIS “Special Immigrant” programs, and their spouses and children:

 Afghanistan or Iraq nationals who supported the US Armed Forces as translators  Iraq nationals who worked for or on behalf of the US Government in Iraq2

• Law Enforcement Aid. The Order does not apply to you if you can satisfy the US Government that your immigration will advance important law enforcement objectives.

• National Interest. The Order doesn’t apply to you if you can show that your entry would be in the national interest.

• Holders of Advance Parole or other Travel Document. The Order does not apply to any foreign national who is overseas but who has Advance Parole or other official travel document.

• Asylees and Refugees. By its terms, nothing in the Order can limit the rights of asylees, refugees and foreign nationals that seek other forms of humanitarian relief. The Trump Administration’s assault on these forms of relief makes this suspect.

• Spouse and Children of US Citizens. The Order does not apply to a spouse, minor child or prospective adoptee of a US Citizen. In an especially harsh stroke, the Order bars from entry the parents of US Citizens and all family members of Lawful Permanent Residents (discussed below).

The Order gives the US Consul the authority to decide if any of the above exemptions applies.

ANALYSIS

The Order is a Harsh and Illusory Distraction from Failed Leadership and Does not Advance its Stated Purpose

A close look at the Order reveals the actual limits of its reach and shows that it fails to promote its stated purpose. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Order is primarily a distraction from a failure of leadership in the war on Covid-19 and yet another log on the anti-immigrant fires.

The Order’s Limited Reach. The Trump Administration effectively gutted overseas visa processing more than one month ago when, on March 20, it suspended routine visa services at US Consulates around the world in response to the pandemic.3 Since then, absent an emergency, immigrant visa

2 https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/special-immigrants

3 https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/ea/routine-visa-services-suspended-worldwide.html

applicants have been practically prevented from processing their cases and immigrating to the United States. Thus, although it is not readily apparent, the Order does little if anything to further curtail immigration.

The number of foreign nationals who are NOT affected by the Order also suggests that its surrounding fanfare is a lot of white noise. This is because it only bars “immigrants” but not “nonimmigrants” who comprise the vast majority of foreign nationals who enter the United States. Immigrants, a/k/a lawful permanent residents or green card holders, are those admitted to the United States on a permanent basis. To be eligible, they must meet the highly demanding requirements of a legal visa category. These can be based on a hard-to-fill job offer, extraordinary contributions, a close family relationship to a US Citizen or lawful permanent resident, a US investment that will create jobs, humanitarian considerations or a few other grounds. Nonimmigrants, on the other hand, enter the United States temporarily for a specific purpose. These include highly skilled H-1B professionals, certain investors, business visitors and tourists, and students, and their family members, to name a few.

The number of immigrants to the United States is dwarfed by the number of nonimmigrants who enter temporarily and are allowed to remain for various periods. Just over 1 million immigrants are admitted to the United States annually; more than 186 million nonimmigrants are admitted in a typical year. During the most recent year for which data is available, 90% of nonimmigrants were visitors for business or pleasure, and a small handful were temporary high-skilled workers, some agricultural workers and students, with their families. Currently, about 2.3 million nonimmigrants reside in the United States. i Thus, the exemption of nonimmigrants from the Order underscores its limited reach and its true purpose of distracting from failed leadership and appealing to anti- immigrant sentiment during an election cycle.

The Order is Temporary. Additionally, the Order is limited to 60 days, although it could be extended. By its terms, it was designed to protect job opportunities for marginalized US workers during record unemployment. Whether it will be extended most likely will depend on the state of the US economy, although we fear that political considerations will come into play.

The Order Fails to Promote its Stated Purpose. As its title shows, the Order is designed to protect jobs for US workers. The preamble states that the Order was designed to protect unemployed marginalized Americans, from competing for jobs during high unemployment. However, the Order fails to accomplish this end.

First, the Order shuts the door to the best and the brightest and the most highly educated from around the world and a host of others who will not compete for jobs with marginalized US workers. These include foreign nationals with demonstrated “extraordinary ability,” outstanding researchers, multi-national managers, advanced degree workers and those with exceptional ability and a college- education, all of whom are barred from entering in what are known as the “EB” or employment- based immigrant visa categories. While these workers could boost the economy, they clearly will not take jobs from the marginalized American worker.

Second, the Order assumes that immigrants will seek to work once they get here. While some will, the Trump Administration’s exceedingly onerous “public charge” requirements make this a disingenuous basis for banning their immigration. As a general rule, an immigrant visa applicant must show that s/he will not become a “public charge.” This now requires voluminous evidence that the intending immigrant can support himself or herself and his or her household with an unprecedented degree of assets and income or that the sponsor can provide this level of support. Immigrants who are in a position to meet this high threshold are unlikely to compete with marginalized workers for low-skilled jobs. Accordingly, it is dishonest and cruel to close the doors to all immigrants, including family-based immigrants, based on an outcry for marginalized worker job protection. Rather, in barring all family-based immigrants other than the spouses and children of US Citizens, the Order accomplishes one of Mr. Trump’s long-stated goals of ending what he calls “chain migration.” Parents of US citizens, who have long been a preferred category under US immigration law, are barred by the Order. So are adult children of US Citizens, siblings of US citizens, as well as spouses and children of permanent residents. Congress has passed laws allowing these parents, children, husbands and wives to immigrate to join their families in the United States. The Order eviscerates this law and policy without reason.

Conclusion

Mr. Trump’s Order suspending immigration to protect the US labor market during the coronavirus pandemic is the legal equivalent of ear candling to treat liver disease. Neither works, and both are dangerous.

Fans of ear candling use a hollow candle to drip hot wax in the ear. They claim it creates negative pressure and funnels out unwanted ear wax. But there’s no evidence that it works. Additionally, the FDA warns that it can block the ear canal, puncture the eardrum and cause other injuries. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with liver disease.

Mr. Trump’s new Order, likewise, is unhealthy for us as a nation and economically toxic. It does nothing to protect job opportunities for marginalized Americans, which is its stated purpose. Instead, it closes our borders to the best and the brightest whose very help we need to wrestle the virus to the mat. It also cruelly separates families.

The corona virus does not discriminate on the basis of immigration status. Mr. Trump should behave accordingly.

i https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nonimmigrant_Population%20Estimates_2016_0.pdf

*********

Here’s a copy of the order:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-immigrants-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-economic-recovery-following-covid-19-outbreak/

Thanks, Denise!

What we really have here is an “Eternal Reichstag Fire.” 🔥 The Clown in Chief 🤡 continues to use bogus “emergencies,” as “greenlighted” by the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes, to suspend the rule of law and “govern” by Executive decree.

This looks less like the “immigration bar” tweeted by Trump for the benefit of his “base” and more like “Phase I” of Stephen Miller’s draft White Nationalist rewrite of the permanent immigration system. It’s basically a way of reducing permanent immigration by “picking on” relatives of U.S. green card holders, adult relatives (other than spouses) of US citizens, DV Lottery winners, and limiting “employment-based” permanent immigration to certain medical professionals, researchers, and “big investors.”

The attack on family immigration, at the core of our traditional immigration system and a source of both economic strength and diversity, is basically what has become the racist trope of “eliminating chain migration.” What it really means is attempting to restrict migrants of color for a “whiter, more Christian” America, long a dream of Miller and the White Nationalist hate groups he has been associated with.

Miller’s nativist program was resoundingly rejected by a bipartisan majority of Congress. But now, with the “J.R. Five” firmly in their pocket, and Congress largely in a state of permanent suspension when it comes to anything other than handing out money, Trump and Miller plan to rewrite the legal immigration system, piece by piece, using Executive decrees propped up by a bogus, but never ending, “employment national emergency.”

On the other hand, by allowing the admission of “non- immigrants” the order recognizes that we will continue to need migrants and their industry and skills at all levels of our economy as we recover. But, they will be relegated to a more subservient status where they are beholden to employers and can’t qualify to become permanent members of our society and eventually citizens. In other words, insuring that migrants coming to America will remain exploitable and disenfranchised. This fits right in with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist playbook.

Once the bogus declaration of “immigration emergency” has been invoked as “temporary,” it never ends. But, with Roberts and his gang of right wing authoritarian enablers determined to “look the other way,” don’t expect any loosening until we stand up and rid ourselves of the Trump kakistocracy at the ballot box (unless Trump gets away with burning that too).

A corrupt and cowardly Supremes’ majority and a feckless Congress led by “Moscow Mitch” are allowing Trump’s “misrule by decree” similar to the Third Reich. And of course “the other” — immigrants — are the primary target.

But, this is also by implication directed at drumming up hate and resentment against Hispanic Americans, all Americans of color, and Muslims, etc. In other words, the “usual suspects” for the White Nationalists. This “Eternal Reichstag Fire” 🔥of hate, lies, scapegoating, and authoritarianism will continue burning and consuming our democracy and its institutions unless and until we get “regime change.”

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

PWS

0-24-20

TWO-FER: Billy Barr Assaults First & Fifth Amendments In Frivolous Attack On NAIJ — Seeks To Harass, Silence Immigration Judges’ Union For Fearlessly Speaking Out Against Demise Of Due Process, Improper Political Influence, Gross Mismanagement In America’s Most Unfair & Dysfunctional “Courts!”

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ — Judge Dorothy Harbeck Secretary/Treasurer of the NAIJ

Immigration TFL_Mar-Apr2020

Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck (in their capacities as NAIJ Officers) write in the Federal Lawyer:

DOJ Tries to Silence the Voice of the Immigration Judges—Again!

The Second Attempt to Decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges

by Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck

Immigration Law

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and serves as the co-chair of the NAIJ Vulnerable Populations Committee. Judge Khan was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. She is seated at the New York Immigration Court and is a member of the New York State Bar. Judge Khan is the programs chair of the FBA Immigration Law Section and is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges.

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ. She is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia and Rutgers. She
is a fellow of the Federal Bar Foundation, is on the Executive Board of the FBA Immigration Law Section, and is a member of the bar in New Jersey and New York.

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—origi

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification

In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—originally certified in 1979 as the recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. IJs—is a voluntary association that represents and speaks for the interests of the nation’s 440 IJs. The NAIJ was formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. DOJ asserts that IJs should be reclassified as “management officials.” This would mean IJs could no longer union- ize, be part of a collective bargaining unit, or speak independently.

NAIJ serves as the only voice of the IJs who cannot speak out without prior express permission of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).2 NAIJ serves to afford transparency and accountability. The immigration courts are not independent courts under Article I or Article III of the Constitution. They are wholly contained within DOJ. Without a union,

IJs have no protection against the politicization of the process and their decisions. Without transparency,

the integrity of the process is in jeopardy. Without a union, the IJs cannot protest policy measures, such as the imposition of quotas and performance measures; the IJs cannot contest the numerous policies enacted by EOIR that encroach upon and undermine the inde- pendent decision-making ability of the IJs; and the IJs will not be able to rally against the effective speedup of the workforce, placing due process and fundamental fairness of the proceedings at risk.

How the Process Works

The burden to show that IJs are management officials is on the moving party (i.e., DOJ). The FLRA regional director (RD) has opened an investigation into the

NAIJ, seeking information about its responsibilities. DOJ can submit factual and legal arguments in support of its petition. The RD can then issue a decision or request a hearing to solicit more information. Either party can appeal the RD’s decision to the full FLRA board.

The Unsuccessful 2000 Attempt to Decertify

the Immigration Judges’ Union

This current effort follows a similar, and unsuccessful, strategy pursued by DOJ to decertify the immigration judges’ union approximately 20 years ago. In Septem- ber 2000, the FLRA’s RD rejected DOJ’s argument, and the full FLRA upheld the RD’s decision on appeal. In that prior decertification attempt,3 the FLRA reject- ed DOJ’s argument that IJs make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting that the trial court level IJs do not set precedent and that their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. The FLRA also said that the immigration court system was established specifically so that IJs do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.

The FLRA also ruled that there is a distinct differ- ence between the trial level IJs and the appellate level Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.4 The description of the duties of the IJ were described in the 2000 decertification attempt:

The daily routine of an Immigration Judge involves hearing and deciding cases that arise from the operation of the INS.5 A court’s juris- diction to decide these cases is determined at the time a case is filed. After filing, the cases are randomly assigned by the court administrator to an individual Judge and placed on a Judge’s calendar on his or her master calendar day. At that time, the Judge hears presentations from the parties and their attorneys, identifies the is- sues, and advises individuals as to their right to

March/April 2020 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 9

representation. The Judge also sets time frames and briefing schedules, as well as the date for trial.6

The nature of the IJs’ decisions and their position in the hierarchy of binding the EOIR was also set forth:

During a trial, the parties are represented by counsel and the rules of evidence are observed. Thereafter, in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigra- tion statutes, applicable regulations, published decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal appellate courts, and other foreign and state laws. After the trial, the Judge issues his or her decision, almost always orally, and advises the parties of their appeal rights. Oral decisions are not tran- scribed unless they are appealed; are not published; and are final and binding only with respect to the parties to the case. With limited exception, decisions of the Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and review of their decisions is de novo. Certain cases may also be appealed to the appropriate U.S. circuit court.7

Citing its precedential case on the managerial status of BIA members (hereinafter “the BIA Management Case”),8 the FLRA specifically stated that the BIA appellate judges were management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the statute and, therefore, could not be included in the existing bargaining unit. In particular, it concluded that “the incumbent Board Member directly influences activity policy through his participation in the interpreta- tion of immigration laws and the issuance of decisions and, thereby, meets the definition of a management official set forth in section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.”9

In the 2000 decertification attempt, the RD applied the BIA Management Case and concluded that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are

not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review.”10 The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the judges do not in- fluence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the BIA.

The FLRA concurred that the RD’s definition of a management official is defined as “an individual employed by an agency in a posi- tion the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”11

Critically, the full FLRA also found that management officials are individuals who: “(1) create, establish or prescribe general princi- ples, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agen- cy; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.”12

The FLRA distinguished the trial court IJs from the BIA appellate judges by specifically holding that IJs do not “make policy through the issuance of their decisions … that in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigration laws and reg- ulations, that their decisions are not published and do not constitute precedent.” Finally, the RD observed that the decisions are binding only on the parties to the case, are “routinely” appealed, and are subject to de novo review.13 There is no difference in this now.

The FLRA specifically agreed with the RD’s rejection of the EOIR’s claims that “the sheer volume of decisions issued by the [immigration] Judges and the finality of their decisions, unless they are appealed,” affect the EOIR’s policy. This is because “no matter the volume of decisions issued, or number of appeals filed, the fact remains that when an Immigration Judge issues a decision [,] he or she is applying and following established Agency law and policy.”14 Again, there is no difference in this now.

While IJs have some authority to control practice in their own courtrooms, they have no authority to set overall policy as to how the courts as a whole will operate. Nor, critically, do they have the authority to direct or commit the EOIR to any policy or course of action. The IJs are highly trained professionals with the extremely important job of adjudicating cases.15 This organizational structure and supervisory delegation was established specifically so that the IJs are unencumbered by any supervisory and management obligations and are free to concentrate on hearings.16 Aspirationally, this is still the position of the IJs.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Khan and Judge Harbeck for courageously speaking out and informing us in such a well-documented and scholarly manner.

It’s disgraceful that political leaders who are supposed to be committed to our Constitution and the rule of law instead misuse government funds and abuse their authority to cover up their wrongdoing and mismanagement. In a functional government, Barr and his toadies would be facing impeachment or referral for criminal investigation from Congress for their abuses of authority and attacks on our Constitution. Most certainly, a competent Congress would long ago have removed EOIR from the clutches of the DOJ politicos and placed it where it belongs: as an independent court system under either Article I or Article III.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-20

🏴‍☠️🆘 AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: THIS DEADLY ☠️🤮 “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡 IS A “COURT” SYSTEM? — You’ve GOT To Be Kidding! — “’Everyone feels the message is, nobody cares if you die as long as we get our numbers,’ said one worker in the office. . . . ‘I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,’ said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. ‘This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.’” — Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan Takes Us Inside “HQ” In America’s Most Morally Corrupt Court System, Where “Trumpian” Contempt For Due Process & Human Lives ☠️ Extends To Its Own Employees, Many Of Them Lower-Paid Clerical Staff!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/doj-union-immigration-deportation-coronavirus-202075

Betsy Woodruff Swan reports for Politico:

The union for lawyers and support staff who handle Justice Department immigration appeals says their office’s working conditions put workers’ lives in danger. And employees in the DOJ office handling those immigration appeals said many suspect it’s because the department prioritizes high deportation numbers over worker safety.

“I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,” said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. “This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.”

It’s an accusation a spokesperson for the office vehemently denied. But the conflict is no longer being kept in the DOJ family; the president of that union recently filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), saying management requires too many people to come into the office, putting workers at risk of contracting Covid-19, the sickness caused by the novel coronavirus. Concerns in the office about worker safety were first reported by Government Executive.

At issue are working conditions in DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The office oversees America’s immigration courts––which are part of the Justice Department––and lawyers there handle appeals from immigrants fighting deportation orders. Those courts face a mammoth backlog of more than one million cases, by Syracuse University’s count. Despite hiring more immigration judges, the backlog has doubled under the Trump administration.

EOIR leaders have maximized how much telework employees there can do, the spokesperson said, adding that the office “takes the safety, health, and well-being of its employees very seriously.”

But the OSHA complaint, which Politico reviewed, says the office is violating a federal law mandating workplaces be free of “hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

“The agency’s actions described below are proliferating the spread of a known and deadly contagion both within our building and to our surrounding communities,” the complaint reads. The office policies “are expected to result in death and severe health complications and/or possible life-long disabilities,” it says.

The office requires most support staff to come in, rather than telework, as they deal with physical pieces of paper and files as part of their work, per the complaint. The few who can work from home can only do so once a week, and on rotating days because they share the same laptop, the complaint reads. At work, support staff sit in cubicles in a shared area, “in direct breathing paths of each other,” it says.

Nancy Sykes, the president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 3525, filed the complaint on behalf of the union. It represents non-managerial Board of Immigration Appeals employees in the office, including attorneys, paralegals, clerks, and legal assistants.

The EOIR spokesperson, meanwhile, said the office is working to implement coronavirus guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Betsy’s report at the link. Long a superstar at The Daily Beast, and an articulate “repeat panelist” on “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd, it’s great to have Betsy “back on the immigration beat” as a part of her “new portfolio” over at Politico. I’ve always found Betsy’s clear prose and insightful analysis enlightening!

Typically within the Trump immigration kakistocracy, the harshest consequences fall jump-on the most vulnerable. In Immigration Court, it’s often unrepresented asylum seekers, some of them mere children, being railroaded through the system with regard to neither due process nor a legally correct application of asylum law. Here, the brunt of the latest EOIR assault on human dignity during the pandemic appears to fall on the support staff at the “bottom of the totem pole” of EOIR’s “bloated at the top,” yet astoundingly misdirected and consequently inefficient, bureaucracy. What a way to run the railroad — even a “Deportation Railroad!” 🚂

As my good friend and Round Table colleague, Judge Jeffrey Chase said: “In spite of having very genuine concerns, the BIA staff are generally off the radar. Thanks to Betsy for spotlighting them. The BIA staff union and the NAIJ put out a joint statement yesterday; let’s hope this begins a period of increased communication and cooperation.”

Many of us “old timers” remember a bygone era when the BIA staff was considered one of the premier places for career attorneys to work at the DOJ. This was largely because staff were treated “like family.” The BIA, in cooperation with the union, actually “pioneered” things like “flexible work schedules” and “work from home” at the DOJ. That union (of which I actually was among the “founding members” back in the 1970’s) was perhaps the first one at the DOJ to represent the interests of both attorneys and support staff. Those times sadly are long gone.

As I’ve mentioned before, under the Trump regime, EOIR “non-management” employees at all levels levels are treated with a disrespect, intentional demeaning, and callous disregard for health and welfare usually reserved for those poor souls trapped in what passes for an immigration justice system under the White Nationalist driven Trump regime. Risking employees’ lives to promote Trump’s reelection agenda? That’s actually illegal on a number of accounts. But, don’t expect any corrective actions in an era where the “rule of law” has been willfully distorted and undermined as Congress and the Article IIIs simply melt away under Trump’s contemptuous scofflaw onslaught.

Unhappily, as Betsy’s article highlights, there appears to be little chance of meaningful change unless and until enough employees actually start dropping dead, by which time it will be too late.

But, as I keep pointing out, there are “other villains” here. Despite DOJ/EOIR efforts to suppress truth, all of this basically is happening in “plain sight,” as we know from folks like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the NAIJ, the BIA union, former Judges on the Round Table who are speaking out, courageous employees willing to “blow the whistle” anonymously, as well as reporters like Betsy, Erich Wagner at Government Executive (who “broke” this story), and Malathi Nayak at Bloomberg News, to name just a few. The unconstitutional mockery of Due Process, immigration, and asylum laws in Immigration Court hearings is documented in verbatim transcripts available to the Article III Courts and the Congress.

Yet, Congress and the Article III Courts let these grotesque abuses within our justice system go on largely unabated. It’s a disgusting and disturbing saga of the breakdown of America’s democratic institutions and their replacement by an authoritarian, “Third-World style” kakistocracy, headed by a dangerously incompetent and unrestrained clown 🤡 whom those charged with protecting us and our institutions refuse to hold accountable.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!🇺🇸 We need “regime change” at all levels. And, that certainly includes a better, more courageous, more scholarly Federal Judiciary that understands immigration and human rights, believes in Due Process and fundamental fairness for all under law, and will finally stand up and put an end to these gross abuses if Congress doesn’t act first. Obviously, it’s also essential to get a new Executive committed to advancing, rather than destroying, our Constitution and the rule of law and who will strive for best, rather than worst, practices in all phases of government.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

PWS

04-23-20

TRUMP’S AUTHORITY OVER IMMIGRATION HAS LIMITS — SADLY, THE “J.R. FIVE’S” WILLFUL BLINDNESS APPEARS TO HAVE NONE! — Failing Partisan High Court Threatens American Democracy! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE: My “Mid-Week Mini Essay”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/trump-immigration-executive-order.html

Jennifer M. Chacon and Ervin Chemerinsky in The New York Times:

A president has broad powers over immigration under the Constitution and federal laws, but they are not unlimited. At the very least, there must be a reasonable basis for restrictions on immigration. None exists for President Trump’s threat to temporarily ban all immigrant visa admissions to the United States.

As with earlier, problematic immigration policies like the entry ban aimed at several predominantly Muslim countries, this proposal started out with a remarkably broad promise by the president: a ban on all immigration. That sweeping rhetoric has a cost of its own. Among other things, it may discourage international students from enrolling in American universities this fall, and otherwise signal “keep out” to visitors who would actually boost the economy. But beyond the rhetorical overkill, there are other problems with this ban. The actual policy proposal is much less than promised by tweet, but even in its whittled down form, it is still unlawful.

A ban on the entry of individuals who have been granted immigrant visas would not affect as many people as you might think. Although there are usually more than 180 million entries into the United States every year, most of that traffic is by people holding temporary visas. This policy would affect only those immigrants who have been authorized for permanent residency. That involves less than a million people — a number that has declined in recent years because of other entry bans, new requirements on immigrants and slow visa processing. The answer to the crushing domestic unemployment crisis caused by the coronavirus outbreak is clearly not going to be found in a ban on these immigrants.

On the other hand, the ban would cause enormous hardships for those who have been granted immigrant visas. Denial of green cards could keep parents and children and other family members from being together. Critical industries — including the overwhelmed medical industry — will lose out on vitally needed expertise just when it is needed most.

More on the Trump administration immigration policy.

Opinion | The Editorial Board

Coronavirus Doesn’t Care Where You Come From. Trump Still Does.March 31, 2020

One would think that such a draconian measure would have a strong justification. If nothing else, under the law, there has to be a legitimate basis for such an order. In upholding President Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court stressed that it was based on a “DHS and other agencies … conduct[ing] a comprehensive evaluation” and “extensive findings.” The court found it constitutional because it served the legitimate purpose of national security.

In other words, even the court’s very deferential approach to presidential decisions concerning immigration in Trump v. Hawaii demanded that the actions be reasonable. The proposed ban on immigration cannot meet that test.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the link.

WISHIN’ & HOPIN’ WON’T MAKE IT SO: THE LAW IS NO LONGER SUPREME IN AMERICA — Obviously, Trump Has Placed Himself Above It, With Little Pushback From Congress Or A Compromised Supremes

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

April 22, 2020

I’m not going to argue with the scholarship of two distinguished academics like Dean Chemerinsky and Professor Chacón in today’s NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/trump-immigration-executive-order.html

But, I take issue with their characterization of Trump v. Hawaii, the so-called “Travel Ban Case,” as requiring a “reasonable justification” for Executive action in the area of immigration.

That’s what the rule should be; but, it isn’t. And, that’s unlikely to change as long as the “J.R. Five” rule the Supremes.

Even some of their “Brethren,” on the left side of the Court but the right side of history, gamely but vainly plugging away for our Constitution and some intellectual honesty from their righty colleagues, are struggling to process the obvious tilt taking place on what should be a “level plaything field.”

On the record in Hawaii, there was nothing approaching “reasonable” about the bogus “national security” grounds for the ban. The record made it clear that the real reason was invidious discrimination against Muslims to fulfill a vile White Nationalist driven campaign promise.

Almost every lower Federal Court to consider the issue realized and articulated this obvious controlling fact. It wasn’t “rocket science.” Just the courage, integrity, and decency to speak truth to power — what life tenure is supposed to be all about.

The “national security” ground was pure pretext that contravened the consensus of the Government’s own internal professional experts, as shown by the record. The “after the fact,” obviously contrived “letter” from Sessions and Kelly asking the President to act was as phony as a three-dollar bill. Indeed, the idea that either of these hacks was acting out of some genuine expertise and legitimate concern for the national security rather than just following “orders from on high” (Sessions also out of a lifelong embrace of racism and xenophobia) is preposterous.

The real message of Hawaii is that Trump can throw up any old fabricated or fraudulent rationale for xenophobia, racism, and religious bigotry designed purely for improper political purposes and the GOP Supremes’ majority will happily look the other way.

That’s apparently because the ideologues who control the Supremes truly believe the GOP far right dogma that some people are more equal than others and that only the rich and powerful truly deserve the protections of the law. That’s why corporations, guns, and Trump generally win before today’s Supremes while voters, African Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, immigrants, and unions generally lose. And, Trump “got” the “encouraging permissive message” of the “J.R. Five” (with Kavanaugh now substituting for Kennedy) loud and clear. He’s acted accordingly.

Trump is no legal scholar. But, he has spent a career using the courts as a battering ram to smash the rule of law to smithereens. This allows him to punish his enemies, reward his cronies, line his pockets, welch on his debts, stiff his creditors, and otherwise lie, cheat, and steal all the while escaping both legal and moral accountability.

If there is one thing that he can smell a mile away, it’s a toady judge. And, in Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, & Kavanaugh, the stench of cowardly complicity with tyranny is overwhelming.

To borrow from one of yesterday’s Courtside posts, the Constitution now appears to be essentially the “Maginot Line” of our democracy. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/21/failed-state-americas-clown-prince-%f0%9f%a4%a1-more-like-infamous-marshal-petain-than-leader-ofthe-free-world-but-the-leader-he-brings-to-mind-is/

Trump and his “Blitzkrieg” have simply outflanked and overwhelmed it. They have pushed decades of refugee, asylum, human rights, and immigration laws into a “mass grave” without any Congressional approval and, when expedient, have just ignored or directly contravened the clear intent of Congress. Any judge worth his or her salt would see this as an obvious existential assault on our Constitution and our fundamental values and act accordingly. But, not this Supremes’ majority. Certainly, the “J.R. Five” would have been right at home serving Henri Petain and the Vichy regime.

The “J.R. Five” employs all sorts of obtuse legal jargon and gobbledygook to cover up their immorality and intellectual dishonesty. It would be a mistake, however, to expect them to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency where immigration policy is concerned.

Expect them instead to buy Trump’s bogus public safety and economic emergency rationales hook, line, and sinker. Heck, this might even be a great opportunity for them to intervene at the U.S. District Court level to facilitate the abuse, further demoralize District Court Judges, reinforce xenophobia, suck up to Trump, and do away with nationwide injunctions except where the regime requests them. The lives of the vulnerable are dispensable to this group of privileged ivory tower jurists.

Trump and the GOP can eventually be voted out of power. But, the problems of a Supremes’ majority that has life-tenure and has lost its way, legally, intellectually, and morally, will be with us for the indefinite future.

Until that’s changed, expecting help from the Supremes in protecting democracy from tyranny is like expecting honesty, reasonableness, and leadership from Trump. Not likely!

Academic analyses, no matter how brilliant or cogent, that fail to account for the partisan bias and political realities at work at the Supremes’ today won’t help us much in predicting the bleak future of the rule of law and individual rights in America if change and reform doesn’t come to all levels of our Federal Judiciary. Sadly, what’s happening today has little to do with what we all learned in law school.

We need to be prepared to meet and deal with today’s reality, no matter how unpalatable it might be. More important, once we retake control of our country and our destiny, we need vastly improved Federal Judges at all levels, particularly the Supremes. The “J.R. Five” are the anthesis of what we should be seeking and demanding in a future, better Federal Judiciary. Never again!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

04-22-20

🏴‍☠️🇺🇸☠️ DEATH MERCHANT ⚰️⚰️ — U.S., “The Wuhan Of The America’s,” Deports Death 💀 To Latin America! — Legal Immigrants Aren’t A Threat To U.S., But Trump Regime Threatens The World’s Health!

Kevin Sieff
Latin America Correspondent
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-is-deporting-infected-migrants-back-to-vulnerable-countries/2020/04/21/5ec3dcfe-8351-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html

Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff report for WashPost:

They arrive 24 hours a day in the Mexican border city of Reynosa, groups of men, women and children deported by the United States. Each time, at the edge of the international bridge, Ricardo Calderón Macias and his team get ready.

They put on masks and gloves. They prepare their thermometers and health forms. They wonder, sometimes aloud: Will anyone in this group test positive?

“We’re worried that eventually, with these deportations, we’re all going to get infected,” said Calderón, the regional director of the Tamaulipas state immigration institute.

Since the coronavirus struck the United States, immigration authorities have deported dozens of infected migrants, leaving governments and nonprofits across Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean struggling to respond.

[[Public health experts: Coronavirus could overwhelm the developing world]]

When some countries resisted continued deportations, U.S. officials said they would screen migrants slated for removal. But they did not commit to administering coronavirus tests. In many instances, the screenings, which consist primarily of taking a person’s temperature, have failed to detect cases. Even though overall deportations declined this month, the United States has returned thousands of people across the Western Hemisphere in April.

President Trump said late Monday he would “suspend immigration” to the United States. Even before that announcement, officials in the region were concerned about the deportations. Guatemala’s health minister spoke this month of the worrying number of infected deportees sent from the United States — the “Wuhan of the Americas,” he said.

[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]

Mexicans just deported from the United States walk toward a repatriation building in Matamoros. (Veronica Cardenas/Reuters)

Mexico’s Tamaulipas state, across the Rio Grande from the southern tip of Texas, is receiving roughly 100 deportees per day, officials there say. In some cases, repatriation workers have noticed that deportees are visibly sick as they arrive. Those deportations are blamed for at least one new outbreak in a Mexican migrant shelter.

On Monday, the Mexican government asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to test deportees for the virus, but DHS has not committed to doing so, according to a Mexican official with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe diplomatic talks.

In Guatemala, at least 50 deportees have tested positive, about 17 percent of the country’s total confirmed cases. Three-quarters of passengers on a deportation flight to Guatemala City last month were infected, according to the country’s Health Ministry. Guatemalan officials said last week they would suspend returns from the United States.

[[Coronavirus outbreaks at Mexico’s hospitals raise alarm, protests]]

In Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, three people sent back from the United States in early April have tested positive, officials said. The country has 62 ventilators for 11 million people. The Trump administration reportedly was planning another deportation flight to Haiti this week.

“Rather than be deported where they face serious harm if they fall ill and risk infecting thousands of others, they should be released from detention into the care of their friends and families so that they may safely quarantine,” a coalition of 164 human rights and religious organizations said in an open letter pleading for suspension of deportations.

Health workers carry supplies delivered by family members to a temporary shelter for Guatemalan citizens deported from the United States in Guatemala City. (Moises Castillo/AP)

In Mexico over the past week, two deportees tested positive for the virus. Calderón’s team spotted a deportee in Reynosa who was visibly ill, with a dry cough, red eyes and a fever. They wondered how the man, who arrived from Atlanta, had made it through U.S. health screenings.

A second man was deported to Nuevo Laredo from Houston “without knowing he was a carrier of the virus,” the Tamaulipas state government said in a statement, and was sent to a migrant shelter in the city.

That case apparently prompted an outbreak in the shelter, Casa del Migrante Nazareth; 14 others have since tested positive.

“The risk we face is bringing a massive contagion into our own country,” said Raúl Cardenas, the city manager of Nuevo Laredo. “We’re mortified that these deportations are continuing.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Not only are Trump’s immigration diversions racist and inappropriate, they are dangerous and threaten unnecessarily to spread the pandemic. Unwilling and unable to address the real needs of the American people during the pandemic (see, e.g., tests, aid to states, speaking truth, encouraging compliance with “best practices”) Trump diverts our resources on controversial and counterproductive measures while diminishing our national humanity and surrendering our world leadership.

This November, Vote ‘Em Out. End The Deadly ☠️ Trump/GOP Clown Show 🤡!

PWS

04-22-20

“DUH” ARTICLE OF DA’ DAY: The Ban Is (Yet Another) Scam! 🆘🤥👎🏻

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/21/trumps-new-immigration-ban-is-scam-dont-pretend-otherwise/

Greg Sargent writes in the WashPost:

There is a single, overarching reality that President Trump cannot make disappear: Due to his pathological unwillingness to take coronavirus seriously, Trump catastrophically squandered numerous early weeks that could have been used to develop a much more robust federal response, and right now we’re living through the horrible consequences.

Trump’s new suspension on immigration, which he “announced” on Twitter late last night, should be seen through this prism.

The new suspension has two rationales, according to Trump and White House officials: To continue combating coronavirus and to protect U.S. workers amid a crushing economic downturn.

It will do neither of those things in any meaningful sense — which means that it won’t have the impact that Trump himself says it’s designed to.

According to the New York Times, Trump will sign an executive order that temporarily bars “the provision of new green cards and work visas,” which means the administration will “no longer approve any applications from foreigners to live and work in the United States for an undetermined period of time.”

It’s hard to say how much of an impact this will have. As the Wall Street Journal points out:

Administration officials said the order wouldn’t make substantial changes to current U.S. policy. Even without an executive order, the administration has already all but ceased nearly every form of immigration. Most visa processing has been halted, meaning almost no one can apply for a visa to visit or move to the U.S. Visa interviews and citizenship ceremonies have been postponed and the refugee program paused.

Immigration analyst Sarah Pierce notes that a lot will turn on details, such as whether this suspension applies to foreign nationals already here and applying for green cards or trying to renew visas, or if it only applies to people outside the country who want to come here, which is effectively no longer possible already.

“If they want to make official what’s already in place, it would make a flashy statement while having minimal impact,” Pierce told me, adding that if they did apply it to people who are already here as well, it could be a lot worse.

President Trump on April 20 said he will issue an executive order temporarily suspending all immigration into the country. (Reuters)

We’ll see soon enough. But we can say right now that this isn’t a solution to the current problems we face on coronavirus, because those problems are rooted in the spread that already took place here. We are starting to bend the curve through social distancing — which Trump long resisted, and which he then tried to undo prematurely before backing off.

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

Yup! You can read the rest of Greg’s article at the link.

Now, in a real democracy, with an independent judiciary, we’d expect immediate and forceful repudiation and perhaps sanctions against the Executive for this latest racist scam.

But, as I have pointed out many times, the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes has a never-ending appetite for putting the law, our Constitution, and simple human decency aside and blindly supporting, enabling, and encouraging the White Nationalist regime in its various immigration scams and shenanigans. They are all as transparently bogus as this one. Trump makes an off the wall political statement out of the White Nationalist playbook and the minions run around trying to engineer and fabricate a legal pretext. The lower Federal Courts often immediately see through the fraud; but, the Supremes step in to rescue the racist agenda, sweep it under the carpet, and in doing so “greenlight” the next extreme step.

Sadly, even regime change won’t be enough to immediately restore courage, integrity, and human decency to our failed highest court. But, it will be a start. Sometimes, “internal rebellion from below” can force change, or at least some integrity and accountability, back into a failing judicial system.

Due Process Forever! White Nationalist Scams Never!

PWS

04-21-20

FAILED STATE: America’s “Clown Prince” 🤡 More Like Infamous Marshal Petain Than Leader Of The Free World — “But the leader he brings to mind is Marshal Philippe Pétain, the French general who, in 1940, signed an armistice with Germany after its rout of French defenses, then formed the pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Like Pétain, Trump collaborated with the invader and abandoned his country to a prolonged disaster. And, like France in 1940, America in 2020 has stunned itself with a collapse that’s larger and deeper than one miserable leader,” Says George Packer @ The Atlantic!🆘😰👨🏻‍⚖️

Henri Petain
Famous French Collaborator/Traitor

Trump Clown — Donald J. Trump
Famous American Clown

George Packer
American Journalist, Author, Playwright

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/underlying-conditions/610261/

Packer writes in The Atlantic:

When the virus came here, it found a country with serious underlying conditions, and it exploited them ruthlessly. Chronic ills—a corrupt political class, a sclerotic bureaucracy, a heartless economy, a divided and distracted public—had gone untreated for years. We had learned to live, uncomfortably, with the symptoms. It took the scale and intimacy of a pandemic to expose their severity—to shock Americans with the recognition that we are in the high-risk category.

This article appears in the Special Preview: June 2020 issue.

The crisis demanded a response that was swift, rational, and collective. The United States reacted instead like Pakistan or Belarus—like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering. The administration squandered two irretrievable months to prepare. From the president came willful blindness, scapegoating, boasts, and lies. From his mouthpieces, conspiracy theories and miracle cures. A few senators and corporate executives acted quickly—not to prevent the coming disaster, but to profit from it. When a government doctor tried to warn the public of the danger, the White House took the mic and politicized the message.

Every morning in the endless month of March, Americans woke up to find themselves citizens of a failed state. With no national plan—no coherent instructions at all—families, schools, and offices were left to decide on their own whether to shut down and take shelter. When test kits, masks, gowns, and ventilators were found to be in desperately short supply, governors pleaded for them from the White House, which stalled, then called on private enterprise, which couldn’t deliver. States and cities were forced into bidding wars that left them prey to price gouging and corporate profiteering. Civilians took out their sewing machines to try to keep ill-equipped hospital workers healthy and their patients alive. Russia, Taiwan, and the United Nations sent humanitarian aid to the world’s richest power—a beggar nation in utter chaos.

Adam Chilton, Kevin Cope, Charles Crabtree, and Mila Versteeg: Red and blue America agree that now is the time to violate the Constitution

Donald Trump saw the crisis almost entirely in personal and political terms. Fearing for his reelection, he declared the coronavirus pandemic a war, and himself a wartime president. But the leader he brings to mind is Marshal Philippe Pétain, the French general who, in 1940, signed an armistice with Germany after its rout of French defenses, then formed the pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Like Pétain, Trump collaborated with the invader and abandoned his country to a prolonged disaster. And, like France in 1940, America in 2020 has stunned itself with a collapse that’s larger and deeper than one miserable leader. Some future autopsy of the pandemic might be called Strange Defeat, after the historian and Resistance fighter Marc Bloch’s contemporaneous study of the fall of France. Despite countless examples around the U.S. of individual courage and sacrifice, the failure is national. And it should force a question that most Americans have never had to ask: Do we trust our leaders and one another enough to summon a collective response to a mortal threat? Are we still capable of self-government?

This is the third major crisis of the short 21st century. The first, on September 11, 2001, came when Americans were still living mentally in the previous century, and the memory of depression, world war, and cold war remained strong. On that day, people in the rural heartland did not see New York as an alien stew of immigrants and liberals that deserved its fate, but as a great American city that had taken a hit for the whole country. Firefighters from Indiana drove 800 miles to help the rescue effort at Ground Zero. Our civic reflex was to mourn and mobilize together.

Partisan politics and terrible policies, especially the Iraq War, erased the sense of national unity and fed a bitterness toward the political class that never really faded. The second crisis, in 2008, intensified it. At the top, the financial crash could almost be considered a success. Congress passed a bipartisan bailout bill that saved the financial system. Outgoing Bush-administration officials cooperated with incoming Obama administration officials. The experts at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department used monetary and fiscal policy to prevent a second Great Depression. Leading bankers were shamed but not prosecuted; most of them kept their fortunes and some their jobs. Before long they were back in business. A Wall Street trader told me that the financial crisis had been a “speed bump.”

All of the lasting pain was felt in the middle and at the bottom, by Americans who had taken on debt and lost their jobs, homes, and retirement savings. Many of them never recovered, and young people who came of age in the Great Recession are doomed to be poorer than their parents. Inequality—the fundamental, relentless force in American life since the late 1970s—grew worse.

This second crisis drove a profound wedge between Americans: between the upper and lower classes, Republicans and Democrats, metropolitan and rural people, the native-born and immigrants, ordinary Americans and their leaders. Social bonds had been under growing strain for several decades, and now they began to tear. The reforms of the Obama years, important as they were—in health care, financial regulation, green energy—had only palliative effects. The long recovery over the past decade enriched corporations and investors, lulled professionals, and left the working class further behind. The lasting effect of the slump was to increase polarization and to discredit authority, especially government’s.

Both parties were slow to grasp how much credibility they’d lost. The coming politics was populist. Its harbinger wasn’t Barack Obama but Sarah Palin, the absurdly unready vice-presidential candidate who scorned expertise and reveled in celebrity. She was Donald Trump’s John the Baptist.

David Frum: Americans are paying the price for Trump’s failures

Trump came to power as the repudiation of the Republican establishment. But the conservative political class and the new leader soon reached an understanding. Whatever their differences on issues like trade and immigration, they shared a basic goal: to strip-mine public assets for the benefit of private interests. Republican politicians and donors who wanted government to do as little as possible for the common good could live happily with a regime that barely knew how to govern at all, and they made themselves Trump’s footmen.

Like a wanton boy throwing matches in a parched field, Trump began to immolate what was left of national civic life. He never even pretended to be president of the whole country, but pitted us against one another along lines of race, sex, religion, citizenship, education, region, and—every day of his presidency—political party. His main tool of governance was to lie. A third of the country locked itself in a hall of mirrors that it believed to be reality; a third drove itself mad with the effort to hold on to the idea of knowable truth; and a third gave up even trying.

Trump acquired a federal government crippled by years of right-wing ideological assault, politicization by both parties, and steady defunding. He set about finishing off the job and destroying the professional civil service. He drove out some of the most talented and experienced career officials, left essential positions unfilled, and installed loyalists as commissars over the cowed survivors, with one purpose: to serve his own interests. His major legislative accomplishment, one of the largest tax cuts in history, sent hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations and the rich. The beneficiaries flocked to patronize his resorts and line his reelection pockets. If lying was his means for using power, corruption was his end.

Read: It pays to be rich during a pandemic

This was the American landscape that lay open to the virus: in prosperous cities, a class of globally connected desk workers dependent on a class of precarious and invisible service workers; in the countryside, decaying communities in revolt against the modern world; on social media, mutual hatred and endless vituperation among different camps; in the economy, even with full employment, a large and growing gap between triumphant capital and beleaguered labor; in Washington, an empty government led by a con man and his intellectually bankrupt party; around the country, a mood of cynical exhaustion, with no vision of a shared identity or future.

. . . .

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

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

Very discouraging. But, it’s not too late, yet. We have a chance in November to throw out the Trump/GOP Kakistocracy and start rebuilding America with a vision of the common good, common sense, and human dignity! Be the best, rather than running a “race to the bottom.”

Let’s consign Trump and his toadies to the same “dustbin of history” as Pétain and his collaborators!

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

PWS

04-21-20

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out!

This November, send the “Clown Prince” 🤡, MM 🤮, and the rest of their anti-American party of disunity, incompetence, disorder, cruelty, stupidity, racism, and grift packing! Vote like your life depends on it! Because, it does!

PWS

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

Related posts:

WISHIN’ & HOPIN’ WON’T MAKE IT SO: THE LAW IS NO LONGER SUPREME IN AMERICA — Obviously, Trump Has Placed Himself Above It, With Little Pushback From Congress Or A Compromised Supremes

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

April 22, 2020

Related posts:

This November, Vote ‘Em Out. End The Deadly ☠️ Trump/GOP Clown Show 🤡!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! White Nationalist Scams Never!

Related posts:

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

Related posts: