AMERICA’S REAL IMMIGRATION CRISIS: THE ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS – Page 137

HEAR ME ON THE “REDIRECT” PODCAST WITH MATTHEW ARCHAMBEAULT, ESQ. (PHILADELPHIA) & STEPHEN ROBBINS, ESQ. (YAKIMA, WA) — TOPIC: Matter of Castro Tum & The Deconstruction Of The U.S. Immigration Courts & Asylum System

This Week:

REDIRECT: Due Process

This week Matthew and I are joined by former Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt to discuss the dwindling due process in our Immigration Courts. Matthew discusses his experience with Castro Tum, a case hand picked by the Attorney General to make life worse for literally everyone. Is the AG intentionally trying to overwhelm the Immigration Courts…

00:00

00:00

Play in New Window|Download

REDIRECT: The War on Legal Immigration

This week we’re joined by Charles Kuck, former president of AILA and the host of some other immigration podcast (….The Immigration Hour) to discuss the important issues of today, including the Pee Tape (PT), whether Charles is still a republican, and the ongoing assault on legal immigration. Yes, that’s right: LEGAL immigration. There is an … Show Notes

00:00

00:00

REDIRECT: Open Borders

This week we’re joined by David Bennion, an immigration attorney in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to talk open borders. He recounts his harrowing encounter with border patrol as he crossed from Idaho into Utah. You can find David’s information here: http://davidbennion.com Our Patreon page is www.patreon.com/redirect. Leave a tip. Like us on … Show Notes

00:00

00:00

REDIRECT: Denaturalized

This week I’m joined by Matthew Hoppock (fake Matthew), an incredible immigration attorney out of Kansas City, to discuss Trump’s new denaturalization task force. Are people really being stripped of their citizenship? Who are they going after, and why? Also, the Army is quietly discharging immigrant recruits who have been promised citizenship. We … Show Notes

00:00

00:00

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

You can find the show at the following places:

http://www.redirectpodcast.com/redirect-due-process/

We’re on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/c2cimmigration?ref=hl

The podcast is available on iTunes:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/redirect-immigration-law-and-perspectives/id911898006?mt=2

And also on Stitcher:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stephen-robbins/coast-to-coast-immigration-law-and-perspetives

We also have a Patreon page:

www.patreon.com/redirect

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

Thanks for having me on your show, Matthew and Stephen, and for all you do. I also recommend appearing on future editions of this podcast to any of our “Gang of Retirees” who might be willing to participate. It was both engaging and worthwhile.

PWS

08-03-18

INSIDE EOIR: RESIGNING EMPLOYEE GIVES INSIGHTS INTO WHY EOIR IS FAILING UNDER SESSIONS AND HOW TO FIX IT: “I haven’t heard one single Civil Servant who thinks that the imposition of quotas on the Immigration Judges is a good idea. On the other hand, many Civil Servants—if only they had a meaningful chance to be heard—have excellent ideas that, if implemented, would improve efficiency without violating due process. It’s not too late to prevent being on the wrong side of history.”

Good evening,

As some of you may know, today is my last day at EOIR. I just want to thank everyone at the court for your friendship and a very rewarding and fruitful time, I will certainly miss you.

I’d like to share a few thoughts before bidding farewell.

To the Civil Servants (IJs, AAs, Legal Assistants, Interpreters, Administrators, etc.): I commend you for choosing to serve your country.I have only the greatest respect for each and everyone of you, and there is not a doubt in my mind that your heart is in the right place. I just want to remind you that before being government employees, you are Citizens of the United States of America: the most extraordinary country in world’s history. That as Civil Servants, you don’t work only for the administration in power—as administrations change, but most of you remain, having chosen to dedicate your lives to serve your country.Instead, you work for “the People.” That you have a voice and your opinion matters, this is your country too.So when an administration plans to do something you suspect is wrong or unconstitutional you can, and should, ask questions.You are the backbone of our government, and for some people you are the only face of the government they’ll ever see. Finally, you’re not alone in this. Talk to each other, you’d be surprised to discover how many others share your same concerns. So organize, share thoughts and ideas, because with unity comes strength.

If Civil Servants are so great why are you leaving then, you may ask? Like you, I take pride in the work I do, and I consider serving my country as the highest form of secular calling, and a way to give back to this country that has been so generous to me.At the same time, we are the results of our experiences.I was born and raised in XXXX, a great country in many respects, but also the country that bears an indelible and shameful scar—the birth and spreading of fascism.An ideology that, through its different permutations, almost brought the world as we know it to an end. Sadly, history has taught me that good countries do bad things—sometimes indescribably atrocious things.So I have very little tolerance for authoritarianism, extremism, and unilateral and undemocratic usurpations of Constitutional rights. I believe that DOJ-EOIR’s plan to implement individual annual numerical performance measures—i.e., quotas—on Immigration Judges violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the DOJ’s own mission to “ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.”This is not the job I signed up for. I strongly believe in the positive value of government, and that the legitimacy of our agency—and any other governmental institution for that matter—is given by “the People’s” belief in its integrity, fairness, and commitment to serve “the People.” But when the government, with its unparalleled might and coercive force, infringes on constitutionally enshrined rights, I only have two choices: (1) to become complicitous in what I believe is a flagrant constitutional violation, or (2) to resign and to hold the government accountable as a private citizen. I choose to resign because I cannot in good conscience continue serving my country within EOIR.[1]

To the Political Appointees: Civil Servants are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution.They are not mercenaries or hired guns paid to merely execute orders, they are United States Citizens and they care about their country as much as you do. So talk to them, engage with them and come up with synergetic plans and solutions. Civil Servants have invaluable insight on what kind of processes and improvements can be implemented because they experience the problems in these processes on a daily basis. And it is also no secret that cooperation and dialogue lead to improved morale. So engaging with Civil Servants is clearly a win-win. Finally, for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard one single Civil Servant who thinks that the imposition of quotas on the Immigration Judges is a good idea. On the other hand, many Civil Servants—if only they had a meaningful chance to be heard—have excellent ideas that, if implemented, would improve efficiency without violating due process.It’s not too late to prevent being on the wrong side of history.[2]

Thank you for your time. I wish you all the best.

[1] Omitted.

[2] Before becoming the United States of America, this land served as refuge for the social outcast, who fled the persecution and the rejection of their native countries in search for survival and a fresh start in life. Their descendants declared independence and founded the United States of America. They too had experienced what an oppressive government does to “the People,” so they created a system of government that included checks and balances—with “separation of powers” paramount among them—to prevent tyranny. A renowned application of separation of powers provides that “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” United States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 n. 4 (1938) (emphases added). So while it is probably true that no other country offers trials and judges to immigrants, this is in fact an unmitigated positive, as the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.This is also what makes America special: the Rule of Law is sovereign upon everyone.

[“REDACTED” VERSION PUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION]

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

Pretty easy to see why Due Process is failing in our Immigration Courts. Short answer: It’s not a priority for the politicos in the DOJ who pull the strings. Actually, Due Process has become an anathema for Sessions and his White Nationalist cabal.

What kind of “court system” would impose arbitrary “performance quotas,” developed by non-judicial officials responding to political pressure over the objections of and without even consulting the Immigration Judges who actually are doing the work? Loss of control over dockets, scheduling, and policies affecting court procedures is a major problem in this system. In the past, it has led to the travesty of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).

Now, a blatantly biased, anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti Due Process agenda has been added to the totally out of control ADR.

That’s why the key to restoring a functioning Immigration Court System is 1) an independent, Article I Court outside of Executive control; and 2) professional court administration controlled by and responsible to the JUDGES who actually decide the cases, rather than to politicos in Washington.

Like the writer of the above message, I believe that there are lots of good ideas on how to improve the system and restore Due Process within the judiciary that are being suppressed. Additionally, the judges should be working with respondents’ counsel, NGOs, the Article III Courts, Court Administrators, and the DHS Chief Counsel to develop systems that serve everyone’s needs and capabilities.

That would be an essential improvement over the present system which is being run by Sessions and his cronies solely for the benefit of one party: DHS Enforcement. How would YOU like to appear before a judge who essentially is working for the opposing party? Not fair, right? But, that’s exactly what today’s Immigraton Court system is! And, that’s why it’s failing our country.

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court that operates with Due Process as its one and only mission. Until that happens, all of our Constitutional rights will be in jeopardy. Because, as the writer above perceptively states, “the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.” Harm to one is harm to all!

Thanks again to the writer of he above message for agreeing to share!

PWS

08-03-18

TAL @ CNN: ADMINISTRATION PLANNING END RUN AROUND FLORES SETTLEMENT BY ISSUING NEW REGULATION!

White House reviewing plan to end court settlement on immigrant child detention

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The White House is reviewing a plan that could nullify a settlement that immigrant children that arrive with their families be released from custody within 20 days, a rule they have blamed for their separation of thousands of families at the border.

The action to finalize regulations on the topic, revealed in a government database, comes after repeated attempts to change the Flores Settlement Agreement have been resoundingly rejected by a federal judge and amid continuing fallout over the Trump administration’s related decision to separate families at the border.

The Trump administration has made the Flores settlement a frequent target of its ire — blaming the agreement for its decision to implement a policy at the border that resulted in thousands of families being separated. It has also repeatedly said only Congress can act to overrule the settlement. But lawmakers have shown little appetite to do so and have so far failed to pass any immigration legislation under this administration.

Key provisions of the agreement dictate minimum standards of care of immigrants in detention, as well as requiring that children who arrive with their families be released from custody within 20 days unless their parent agrees to them being held longer. But three weeks is faster than their immigration court cases can be processed, leading the Trump administration to complain the agreement forces them to either release the families together or separate them.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/politics/trump-administration-flores-settlement/index.html

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

Sounds pretty scofflaw! Can they get with it?

Flores doesn’t purport to create Constitutional rights for the class members. Congress clearly could, and should, merely enact the Flores protections for children into statute. But, realistically, that’s not going to happen under Trump, and even if it did, Trump would undoubtedly veto it.

Conversely, perhaps Congress could overrule Flores by statute. But, if Flores turns out to be setting forth Constitutional minimum requirements, then the statute would be held unconstitutional. On the other hand, if no Constitutional issues are involved, Congress would be free to act. However, Congress hasn’t shown any enthusiasm for immigration legislation, particularly something as sensitive and potentially controversial as Flores.

Additionally, just because Congress could change the law doesn’t necessarily mean that the Administration could do so by regulation. Indeed, if the Administration could void a court-approved settlement simply by publishing a regulation, settlements with the Government would cease to have any meaning or enforceability.

Also, at the time of the original Flores settlement it seems to me that both parties and the court wisely wanted to avoid protracted litigation on the Constitutional question of long-term detention of children which had risks for both parties.

At a minimum, an attempt to “undo” Flores by regulation would allow the plaintiffs to raise the Constitutional issue in court. It’s seems to me that there must be some Constitutional limits on child detention. So, the Government could well end up enjoined to follow Flores while the litigation on the Constitutional question works its way up the system — a process likely to take until beyond 2020. I’d also say that the Administration’s stupidity and lawlessness on separating children from parents tends to make the “litigating context” very favorable for plaintiffs.

So, to me, it looks like another dumb, counterproductive, “in your face” move by the Trumpsters. But, that doesn’t mean they won’t try it. In fact, most of their so-called “litigating strategy” seems to fit this mold. It’s an Administration that has made immorality, lies, fraud, waste, and abuse of public resources the norm. However this issue comes out, that couldn’t bode well for the future of our country.

PWS

08-03-18

TED HESSON @ POLITICO: DHS TO ACLU ON SEPARATED PARENTS: “Go find ‘Em Yourself. Not Our Problem!”

Ted Hesson reports for Politico:

The Trump administration on Thursday informed a federal judge that it isn’t responsible for locating deported parents separated forcibly from their children at the southern border.

DOJ said in a court filing that the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over family separations, should instead take the lead in reunifying deported parents with their children.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel should use their considerable resources and their network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and others, together with the information that defendants have provided (or will soon provide), to establish contact with possible class members in foreign countries,” DOJ said.

The administration suggested that the ACLU find out whether the deported parents wish to be reconnected with their children, or whether they waive that option.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has stated repeatedly that no parents were deported without first being given the option to take their children with them. But a Trump administration official told POLITICO on July 25 that an estimated three-quarters of the parents who left the country alone left no record behind that they ever consented to leave their children in the U.S. “We don’t see it in the documentation,” the official said.

At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Matthew Albence, executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, repeatedly dodged questions about whether DHS could document that it secured deportee parents’ consent to leave their children behind.

In Thursday’s court filing, the ACLU disputed the Trump administration’s claim that it isn’t responsible for deportees, saying it “must bear the ultimate burden of finding the parents.”

The ACLU said that Trump’s “unconstitutional separation practice” precipitated the crisis and that the federal government possessed far more resources than non-governmental organizations to find the parents.

In addition, the plaintiffs contended that many addresses that the administration provided won’t aid reunification. Some simply said “in DHS custody” or “failed to provide,” according to the ACLU.

The organization estimated that records for 120 parents outside the U.S. — more than one quarter the total deported without their kids — may lack viable addresses.

According to the court filing, some records simply say “calle sin nombre” (street without a name) or list the name of a city.

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

Yeah, as I was saying about lack of accountability in my previous posting. Seems like it’s time for the U.S. District Judge to start issuing some contempt citations for Government officials and lawyers. Perhaps a few days in jail for Secretary Nielsen would light a fire under her to correct the Constitutional abuses undertaken under her authority. And it seems to me that the disingenuous court filings from DOJ in behalf of DHS are more than enough to file disciplinary actions against the DOJ Attorneys and to haul Sessions into court for possible contempt proceedings.

As I’ve said before, if any private lawyer conducted themselves before the District Court the way the Trump Administration did in this case, he or she would be in danger of losing both freedom and license to practice law. But, the laws don’t seem to apply to this Administration the way they do to the rest of us.

PWS

08-02-18

NPR: FRONTLINE TAKES YOU INSIDE THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT LED TO FAMILY SEPARATION — Featuring Michelle Brane Of The Women’s Refugee Commission

Dear Paul,I hope you saw the new “Frontline” episode, Separated: Children at the Border, last night on PBS. The episode provides an in-depth, factual look at the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy and the treatment of families seeking safety at the border.

I was interviewed about the work of the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) on behalf of women and children seeking asylum and what I witnessed on a recent monitoring visit to a processing center at the border.

We want you to know that WRC is unyielding in our commitment to hold the Trump administration accountable for its cruel policies — we will not stop until families seeking safety at the U.S. border are treated humanely and have their human rights respected.

Thank you for standing with us.

Warm regards,

Michelle Brané,

Director of Migrant Rights and Justice

WATCH IT HERE

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

The Trump Administration specializes in avoiding accountability. The masters of the lie always blame the courts, the victims, the Democrats, the press, lawyers, everybody but them. That was on display this week during Senate oversight hearings where nobody took responsibility for the child separation policy that everyone agreed was a bad idea. Of course, missing from the hearing lineup was the unapologetic and disingenuous “mastermind” of the “zero tolerance policy” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions.

The video also shows how badly the Obama Administration screwed up the treatment of arriving asylum applicants with counterproductive policies like the abominable “family detention.” Not much acceptance of responsibility there either. Indeed, this is when the policy of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ and White House politicos went into high gear sending the Immigration Court backlog careening out of control.

PWS

08-02-18

LA TIMES: SESSIONS IS “DECONSTRUCTING” OUR ASYLUM SYSTEM, AND IT’S A NATIONAL OUTRAGE THAT CONGRESS SHAMEFULLY REFUSES TO FIX – “Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=8434794c-eb73-4a2e-a2cd-3dafee637733

By the LA Times Editorial Board:

A shameful retreat on asylum

Here’s the disheartening reality about the Trump administration’s policies toward those arriving at the borders seeking asylum: Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University reports that immigration judges — who work for the Justice Department, not the federal courts — are granting asylum seekers’ appeals half as often as they did a year ago. Through June, courts revived less than 15% of the asylum claims that had been rejected by immigration agents, who make the initial determination whether an asylum seeker had a credible fear of persecution if returned home.

What changed from the first half of 2017? The reduction of successful appeals coincided with Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions’ comments that the asylum system “is being gamed” (there’s little evidence of that), his demands that immigration courts handle appeals more quickly, and the roll-out of performance quotas to force immigration judges to clear cases faster. That’s what changed.

The TRAC analysis further found that rate of successful appeals varies wildly by geographic region and even among judges within the same regional court — a systemic inconsistency that predates the Trump administration. That justice is so fickle is neither fair nor meets our moral and legal obligations to those fleeing persecution.

We can rail against the Justice Department’s failings, but the responsibility rests with Congress. It granted the department wide latitude in handling asylum requests from people facing persecution based on race, religion, race, political beliefs, nationality or membership in a social group.

That last, ill-defined category gave the government flexibility as times and needs warranted, but it also has led to uncertainty and politicization. Sessions, for instance, recently overturned an Obama-era immigration court definition that made asylum available to women who faced domestic violence in countries where police failed to protect them. So a political change in the attorney general’s office can weigh more heavily than precedents set by immigration judges.

This is fixable if we ever get a Congress willing to compromise and craft comprehensive immigration reforms framed within a humanitarian context and informed by the nation’s best interests — in terms of diversity and economic growth — and not one that panders to the current mood in the capital of nationalistic antipathy for the foreign-born. In the meantime, we must insist that people who are deserving of sanctuary receive it, and not get turned away to satisfy the current political whims.

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

What’s happening to our U.S. Immigration Courts and to our asylum system is indeed a national outrage that requires Congressional action. That corrective action, at a minimum, must 1) establish an independent, Article I Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch; and 2) specify that persecution based upon gender constitutes persecution on account of a “particular social group.”

Not going to happen under this Congress! That’s why regime change is so critical. And, getting out the vote this November and thereafter is key to the majority no longer being subject to the whims of a toxic minority Government that has abandoned our Constitution, human rights, human decency, common sense, and the common good.

PWS

08-02-18

GONZO’S WORLD: AG’S LATEST SCAM, “RELIGIOUS LIBERTY TASK FORCE” @ USDOJ WIDELY PANNED!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/twitter-sessions-religious-liberty-task-force_us_5b5f92bae4b0b15aba9bfcff

Mary Pappenfuss reports for HuffPost:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the U.S. Justice Department is launching a “religious liberty task force” — and Twitter erupted.

The new unit will aid the department in fully implementing the religious liberty legal “guidance” issued last year under President Donald Trump’s direction, Sessions said in a speech at the Justice Department’s Religious Liberty Summit in Washington.

The attorney general charged that the freedom to practice religion in America has come “under attack” in the nation’s current “cultural climate.”

A “dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom …. It must be confronted … and defeated,” he added.

“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen United States senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma …. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” Sessions added, referring to the Colorado baker who won a religious liberty challenge to LGBTQ anti-discrimination law in the U.S. Supreme Court after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Sessions called freedom of religion “indeed our first freedom being the first listed right in the First Amendment” and said that the Trump administration is “actively seeking to accommodate people of faith.”

Sessions touted his department’s prosecution of attacks on religion, among them court actions shielding about 90 plaintiffs from Obama-era requirements that employer health insurance cover contraception, an amicus brief “we were proud to file” on behalf of Phillips, and indictments in an arson attack and threats directed at two mosques.

Twitter exploded, with critics charging that the Religious Liberty Task Force was a front to protect religious zealots attacking LGBTQ rights and an unconstitutional push to marry church and state on the altar of Christianity.

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

Read the entire Article, including the “Twitter Storm” at the link. Some pretty funny but “right on” reactions!

Yet another taxpayer-financed scam by our corrupt and bigoted Attorney General. Obviously this is a thinly disguised effort to use Government funding and power to promote and establish far right-wing Christian views and biases.

Don’t expect any help for Muslims targeted for hate crimes, irrationally excluded under the “Travel Ban,” or targeted by anti-Muslim pronouncements of Administration officials and GOP right-wing politicos. Don’t expect any assistance or protection for those religious groups actually engaged in “God’s work on earth” and carrying out Christ’s true humanitarian, forgiving teachings by providing help to migrants and resisting inhumane and illegal Administration policies. Don’t expect any help for Bhuddists, atheists, deists, or any other non-right-wing Christian groups trying to vindicate their First Amendment rights. Don’t expect any help for members of the LGBTQ community whose rights are being trampled upon by so-called Christians who promote intolerance, discrimination, humiliation, de-humanization, and hate in the name of false “religious expression.”

Interestingly, Sessions himself has been charged within the Methodist Church (of which my wife and I are members) with violation of teachings of Christ and the Church’s own rules and values.

He’s a total scofflaw and a fraud, seeking to impose his corrupt, inhumane, intolerant views on the rest of us by abusing his Government position and squandering taxpayer funds on an anti-Constitutional attempt to establish particular “so-called Christian views” as the law of the land.

PWS

08-01-18

TRAC: THE SESSIONS EFFECT — DENIALS OF DAY IN COURT FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS SPIKE — Country Conditions Remain Horrible & Asylum Statute Hasn’t Changed, But Many More Asylum Applicants Now Denied Access To Immigration Court Hearings — Huge Individual Discrepancies Among Judges On “Credible Fear” Findings!

==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. Immigration Court outcomes in credible fear reviews (CFR) have recently undergone a dramatic change. Starting in January 2018, court findings of credible fear began to plummet. By June 2018, only 14.7 percent of the CFR court decisions found the asylum seeker had a “credible fear.” This was just half the level that had prevailed during the last six months of 2017.
These very recent data from the Immigration Court provide an early look at how the landscape for gaining asylum may be shifting under the current administration. Unless asylum seekers, including parents with children, arriving at the southwest border pass this initial CFR review, they are not even allowed to apply for asylum. As a consequence, individuals who don’t pass these reviews face being quickly deported back to their home countries.

The latest available case-by-case court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University document that depending upon the particular Immigration Court undertaking the credible fear review, the proportion of asylum seekers passing this screening step varied from as little as 1 percent all the way up to 60 percent – a sixty-fold difference. Since October 2015, for example, at least half passed their credible fear reviews when these were conducted by the Immigration Courts in Arlington, Virginia (60% passed), Chicago, Illinois (52% passed), Pearsall, Texas (51% passed), and Baltimore, Maryland (50% passed). In contrast, few were found to have credible fear when their review took place in Immigration Courts based in Lumpkin, Georgia (only 1% passed) and Atlanta, Georgia (only 2% passed).

Which judge is assigned to undertake this review can also have a dramatic impact. Judges on the Pearsall, Texas and San Antonio, Texas Immigration Courts found as few as 4 percent demonstrated credible fear, while others on the same two courts found 94 percent with such fear.

Previous reports by TRAC and others have long documented wide judge-to-judge disparities in asylum decisions. This report breaks new ground in showing that similar differences also exist earlier in the asylum process in the determination of who is allowed to apply for asylum.

To read the full report, including specifics for each Immigration Court, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/523/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through June 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

To state the obvious, if we believe in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we simply can’t tolerate a “court” run, improperly influenced, and manipulated by a xenophobic, White Nationalist, racist enforcement zealot like Jeff Session.

Time for “regime change” that includes an independent U.S. Immigration Court dedicated to insuring Due Process! Get out the vote this fall!

PWS

08-01-18

PBS: ADMINISTRATION WARNED OF LASTING DAMAGE CAUSED BY SEPARATION — PROCEEDED ANYWAY

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-was-warned-of-traumatic-psychological-injury-from-family-separations-official-says

Joshua Barajas reports for PBS:

A top health official told lawmakers Tuesday that the Trump administration was warned about instituting “any policy” resulting in family separations because of the effects such separations could have on the wellbeing of immigrant children.

The official’s response came after Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked every federal immigration official at Tuesday’s hearing over family separations to answer a particular question: “Did anyone on this panel say, maybe [separating families] wasn’t such a good idea?”

After a pause, Blumenthal directed his question first to Commander Jonathan White of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who said he and the Office of Refugee Resettlement raised a number of concerns in the previous year about “any policy which would result in family separation due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child as well about whether that would be operationally supportable with the bed capacity we had.”

The Democratic senator asked the commander to further explain his response in layman’s terms, asking if he told the administration that children would “suffer” as a result of its “zero tolerance” policy.

“There’s no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child.”

“Separation of children from their parents entails significant harm to children,” White said in response. “There’s no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child,” he added, shortly after.

READ MORE: How the toxic stress of family separation can harm a child

White also said that the administration’s response was that family separation was not a policy. As stated before, there is no current law that mandates the separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border.

The Trump administration implemented its “zero-tolerance” policy this spring. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in June to halt the separations.

In recent weeks, lawsuits filed against the separation policy have produced testimonies from lawyers and the separated families they represent, alleging that the government’s actions resulted in trauma to their children.

In one personal declaration presented earlier this month in court, one mother said her son “is not the same since we were reunited.”

“I thought that, because he is so young he would not be traumatized by this experience, but he does not separate from me. He cries when he does not see me,” Olivia Caceres said of her 1-year-old son. “That behavior is not normal. In El Salvador he would stay with his dad or my sister and not cry. Now he cries for fear of being alone,” she wrote.

Here are several other key moments from Tuesday’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

. . . .

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

Read the entire article at the link.

The lack of accountability and acceptance of responsibility by the Administration is astounding, as was Sen. Cornyn’s tone deaf comment. The reason why other laws aren’t being enforced is because of the cruel, wasteful, unconstitutional “zero tolerance” policy instituted by Sessions. Stop blaming the victims, Senator!

And why isn’t Sessions being held accountable for the mess he “masterminded?”

PWS

08-01-18

SESSIONS’S CLAIM THAT HE WAS “REQUIRED BY LAW” TO PROSECUTE ALL ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS IS BOGUS — CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ARE ALWAYS DISCRETIONARY — “[W]hen it comes to prosecuting immigration laws, it’s never not a choice.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-hernandez-family-separations_us_5b5a0a30e4b0fd5c73cd2e59

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández writes in HuffPost:

When President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, his administration’s policy of pushing young unauthorized migrants to the bottom of the immigration law-enforcement priority list, Republicans complained that focusing on some legal violations over others was equivalent to not enforcing the law. When Obama used his discretion to extend similar protections to parents of U.S. citizens, Republican legislators successfully took to the courts to block him.

Within days of entering the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order proclaiming, “We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.” To Republicans, prosecutorial discretion subverts the rule of law. Or so they say.

Government data about the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy toward border crossers reveal that it, too, is picking and choosing whom to target. In May, at the height of its policy of tossing parents into criminal proceedings while their children were hauled to government-run prisons, Border Patrol agents sent 9,216 people to prosecutors. That is about 1,000 more than in April and over 5,000 more than the same month a year earlier. The increase was especially noticeable in the family separation epicenter of McAllen, Texas, where I was born and where my law firm is based. Lawyers in my hometown saw 841 prosecutions in April jump to 2,079 in May.

That is a lot of people, but it’s not everyone. In May, Border Patrol agents stationed across the southwest border caught almost 29,000 adults clandestinely entering the United States. Eighty-five percent had no children; the rest are the parents whose anguish has been heard across the world.

Of all the adults apprehended that month, most were not prosecuted criminally. Only one-third were charged with a federal immigration crime. The rest presumably ended up in the civil immigration court system or in fast-track legal proceedings in which immigration officials deport people without taking them in front of a judge. Zero tolerance apparently didn’t mean zero exceptions.

It makes complete sense that the government did not go after everyone. The federal courts can’t handle that many cases. Picking and choosing is a part of every big law enforcement system. The important question isn’t whether that happens ― despite Republican insistence, it always does. The important question is why law enforcement officers choose to target some people over others.

. . . .

When it comes to taking a child from her parent, nothing is simple. And when it comes to prosecuting immigration laws, it’s never not a choice.

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández is an associate professor of law at the University of Denver, publisher of the blog crimmigration.com, and of counsel to García & García Attorneys at Law.

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Of course separating children from parents has always been a choice driven by Sessions’s racism, White Nationalism, and xenophobia and having nothing whatsoever to do with sound law enforcement policy.

Indeed, studies have shown that so-called “zero tolerance” enforcement programs are failures across the board from a law enforcement standpoint. And, low level immigration prosecutions such as those promoted by Sessions have no documented deterrent effect. But, they have been shown to reduce the amount of time that Federal prosecutors and Federal Judges have to spend on “real” law enforcement, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime, and fraud.

PWS

07-31-18

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST: RACIST, WHITE NATIONALIST ADMINISTRATION DEHUMANIZES MIGRANTS OF COLOR — “All of this is happening because Trump has no respect for law or due process and no sense of empathy. He was reportedly upset this spring by a rise in border crossings by asylum-seekers, who by law had to be allowed to stay pending resolution of their claims. He and Sessions seized upon the pretext — for which they have not provided evidence — that children were being “trafficked” into the country for some reason.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-the-trump-administration-see-central-americans-as-human/2018/07/30/90dc17d4-9432-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.17b3b808d283

Robinson writes:

. . . .

If you have children, imagine how you would feel seeing them taken away like that. Hug your kids. Imagine not knowing where they are or whether you’ll ever get to hug them again.

Now imagine the terror and despair those 711 “ineligible” children must feel. It is monstrous to gratuitously inflict such pain. It is, in a word, torture.

In 120 cases, according to the government, a parent “waived” reunification with the child. This claim cannot be taken at face value, however, since immigration advocates cite widespread reports of parents being coerced or fooled into signing documents they did not understand.

Human nature binds parents with their children. It shocks and depresses me to have to write this, but I wonder whether Trump and his minions see these Central Americans — brown-skinned, with indigenous features — as fully human.

In 431 cases involving children between 5 and 17, officials reported, the parents have been deported. Where are they now? How could the government let this happen? If these parents were going to be denied permission to stay in the United States, what was the big hurry to kick them out? Why couldn’t the administration wait until their children could be brought back from wherever they were being kept?

Even more incredibly, in 79 cases, the children’s parents have been released into the United States. In other words, the parents have some legal status — but the government has their children.

And in 94 cases, according to Trump administration officials, the parents cannot be located. What are the odds, do you think, that these men and women will ever be found? Where do parents go to begin the process of tracking down their children? How do you tell a 5-year-old that she may never see her mother and father again?

That’s the reported situation for children 5 and older. The government is also still holding 46 children younger than 5 whom officials cannot or will not give back to their parents. Think of the trauma being inflicted on 2-year-olds — to make a political point.

All of this is happening because Trump has no respect for law or due process and no sense of empathy. He was reportedly upset this spring by a rise in border crossings by asylum-seekers, who by law had to be allowed to stay pending resolution of their claims. He and Sessions seized upon the pretext — for which they have not provided evidence — that children were being “trafficked” into the country for some reason.

“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said in May. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

Think, for a moment, of the millions of Irish, Italian, Eastern European and other immigrants who “smuggled” children into the United States — families such as Trump’s own. The only difference is that those earlier immigrants, though sometimes rejected at first, came to be seen as white.

Brown immigrants need not apply. Not if they want to see their kids again.

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

Read Robinson’s complete op-ed at the above link.

“Right on” Eugene! We need “regime change,” sooner rather than later. And, we still don’t have an answer to Eugene’s earlier question: When, if ever, will Sessions and other Trump Administration officials be held accountable for their intentionally lawless and unconstitutional behavior?

PWS

07-31-18

RETIRED ARTICLE III JUDGES OFFER TO SERVE AS U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO HELP RESOLVE BACKLOGS!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/26/us/retired-judges-immigration-case-backlog/index.html

Emanuella Grinberg reports for CNN:

(CNN)The number of pending cases in US immigration courts hit a record high this year and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.

With more than 700,000 open cases as of May, judges face a heavy case load. To alleviate the burden, two retired federal judges have proposed a solution: bring jurists like them back to the bench.

“We certainly have the expertise. We’ve handled heavy dockets of cases and we’re accustomed with having to get up to speed very quickly in various areas of the law,” retired US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said.

Patel and retired Judge D. Lowell Jensen sent a letter with the recommendation earlier this month to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and James McHenry, director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday night.

“We are aware that at this time there are extraordinary burdens and backlogs faced every day by the country’s immigration judges, particularly along the southern border. We believe retired federal judges are a valuable untapped resource who could be called into service to assist in handling the immigration caseload fairly and efficiently,” the pair wrote in a letter dated July 12.

Retired judges have been vetted before so the process for obtaining security clearances wouldn’t take as long as it would for new appointees, the letter said. And because federal judges receive an annuity from the government, they could potentially “volunteer” their time without drawing a salary, Patel added.

Retired US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in 1992.

They also bring experience in immigration law from their time on the bench and other chapters of their career, Patel said. She worked as a DOJ attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1967 to 1971. She served as district court judge for 32 years before retiring in 2012.

Like many federal judges, especially those in large metropolitan areas or near ports of entry, Patel said she handled various immigration matters: asylum cases, deportations, removals and petitions for release, or habeas corpus. None in particular stand out — “they sort of merge all together,” she said. But one of her cases resurfaced after she retired, through the Trump administration’s travel ban.

In 1983, Patel overturned Japanese-American Fred Korematsu’s criminal conviction for disobeying government orders during World War II to leave his Bay Area home and enter an internment camp. But the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision that blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remained intact — until Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the court was overruling it in its ruling upholding the travel ban.

Otherwise, Patel said she has kept a relatively low profile, with a few speaking engagements and some consulting work here and there. But as controversy and caseloads grew along the southern border, she felt compelled to act, she said. She contacted Jensen, who served on the federal bench for 28 years, who agreed to co-sign the letter.

“We urge you to utilize this considerable resource since we know that vetting and appointment of new [immigration judges] will take some time, and time is of the essence to meet the crushing burden of pending and new cases,” the letter said.

Patel said she had yet to receive any response from the government.

“I’m not holding my breath,” she said. “I know federal judges are perceived as being very independent and that may not be to the liking of the attorney general or the Department of Justice at this time.”

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

Interesting!

Sounds like a great idea! I think it would be an eye opener for both the Article IIIs and the IJs.

Suspect, though, as suggested in the article, the “real judges” would be too independent for Sessions & McHenry.

How DOJ & EOIR respond to this offer will tell us lots about whether they genuinely desire to resolve the Immigration Court backlog in a fundamentally fair manner, consistent with Due Process, or whether the backlog is purposely being “jacked up” and used as a “bludgeon” by Sessions to eliminate Due Process and otherwise push for draconian changes in the law.

PWS

07-30-18

“OUR GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES ISSUES PRESS RELEASE ON IMPROPER REMOVAL OF IMMIGRATION JUDGE FROM CASTRO-TUM CASE!

On Thursday, July 26, EOIR, in a costly and inefficient use of the agency’s resources, sent an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to conduct a single preliminary hearing. Although there was no indication of any legitimate basis for doing so, the case had been taken off of the calendar of an experienced Immigration Judge in Philadelphia, apparently for the sole reason that the judge had exercised independent judgment by asking for briefs on the issue of whether the respondent had in fact received notice of the hearing. The Assistant Chief Judge (a part of EOIR’s management) ordered the respondent removed in absentia without further inquiry into such question, fulfilling the purpose for which she was sent to Philadelphia.

An independent judiciary is imperative to democracy. Immigration Judges have always struggled to maintain independence while remaining in the employ of an enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, and serving at the pleasure of a political appointee, the Attorney General. Although not entitled to the same due process safeguards as criminal proceedings, the consequences of deportation can be as harsh as any criminal penalty. As their decisions often have life-or-death consequences, Immigration Judges must be afforded the independence to conduct fair, impartial hearings. For this reason, some important due process safeguards are required in deportation proceedings, and errors should be corrected through the appeals process, not through interference by managers.

Last Thursday’s case had been remanded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In the absence of another explanation, it would seem that EOIR’s management did not believe Sessions’ purpose in remanding the case was for an Immigration Judge to then exercise independent judgment to ensure due process. The agency therefore removed the case from the docket of a capable judge in order to ensure an outcome that would please its higher-ups. While as former Immigration Judges and BIA Members with many decades of combined experience, we appreciate the pressures on EOIR’s leadership, such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable. EOIR’s management exists to fulfill an administrative function, not to impede on the decision-making process of its judges. EOIR more than ever needs leadership with the courage to protect its judges from political pressures and to defend their independence. As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians.

Hon. Steven Abrams
Hon. Sarah M. Burr
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr.
Hon. William P. Joyce
Hon. Carol King
Hon. Margaret McManus
Hon. Charles Pazar
Hon. Susan Roy
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt
Hon. Polly A. Webber

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

Sadly, no surprise that under Sessions the “captive” U.S. Immigration Courts are becoming more blatantly politicized — always in ways that are adverse to Due Process, an independent judiciary, and the rights of migrants appearing before those courts.

We need an Article I U.S. Immigration Court, run by judges, not politicos, with the assistance of professional court administrators responsible to the judges.

PWS

07-30-17

THE HILL — NOLAN SAYS LEGALIZATION SHOULD BE #1 CONCERN FOR THOSE THREATENED WITH REMOVAL!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/399394-aliens-here-unlawfully-need-legalization-not-protection-from-being-called

Family Pictures

Nolan writes in The Hill:

. . . .

They need legalization

The last legalization program was established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, more than 30 years ago. The Democrats claim that this is because the Republicans won’t cooperate, but that isn’t true.

The Democrats could have established a legalization program without Republican cooperation during the first two years of Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, there were enough Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster.

And they could establish one now if they really wanted to.

Trump is willing to support legalization for 1.8 million aliens in the DACAprogram if the Democrats accept the three conditions in his framework on immigration reform and border security.

Trump wants to end chain migration. This should not be a deal-breaker if the legalization program were to be established by expanding the availability of Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ) status to include DACA participants, which could restrict the end of chain migration to them as opposed to ending it for everyone.

SIJ provisions state, “no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”

I’ve suggested this possibility before.

Trump also wants a wall along the border with Mexico, which would make it more difficult for parents to make illegal crossings with their young children in the future. Adults may be able to climb over a wall 20 or 30 feet high, but young children can’t.

The other condition is to terminate the Diversity Visa Program (DVP).

The Democrats have been willing to end the DVP in the past. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) Gang of Eight bill would have repealed it in 2013 if it had been enacted.

The problem seems to be that legalization isn’t very important to the Democrats.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the above link for Nolan’s complete article!

I agree with Nolan that legalization should be the focus.

I have also made a similar observation that during the first two years of the Obama Administration, Democrats could have solved what have become the three most pressing problems on the domestic front:

Legalization;
Dreamer relief; and
An independent U.S. Immigration Court.

Our country and the good folks caught up the in current system are paying the price every day for these failures. But, past is past. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes again if and when the Democrats and whatever “moderate” Republicans still remain get a chance to act.

PWS

07-30-18

WASHPOST CHRONICLES THE TRUMP/SESSIONS SELF-CREATED HUMAN RIGHTS DISASTER — Incredible Cruelty, Incompetence, Bias, & Just Plain Old Stupidity!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/deleted-families-what-went-wrong-with-trumps-family-separation-effort/2018/07/28/54bcdcc6-90cb-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html

Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein, and Maria Sacchetti report for the Washington Post:

Social Issues

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

5:41

Why hundreds of migrant children are still separated from their parents

Hundreds of migrant children remain in custody after the Trump Administration scrambled to reunite separated families under a court-imposed deadline.(Jon Gerberg/The Washington Post)

By Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein and Maria SacchettiJuly 28 at 1:15 PMEmail the author

When a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reunify migrant families separated at the border, the government’s cleanup crews faced an immediate problem.

They weren’t sure who the families were, let alone what to call them.

Customs and Border Protection databases had categories for “family units,” and “unaccompanied alien children” who arrive without parents. They did not have a distinct classification for more than 2,600 children who had been taken from their families and placed in government shelters.

So agents came up with a new term: “deleted family units.”

But when they sent that information to the refugee office at the Department of Health and Human Services, which was told to facilitate the reunifications, the office’s database did not have a column for families with that designation.

The crucial tool for fixing the problem was crippled. Caseworkers and government health officials had to sift by hand through the files of all the nearly 12,000 migrant children in HHS custody to figure out which ones had arrived with parents, where the adults were jailed and how to put the families back together.

Compounding failures to record, classify and keep track of migrant parents and children pulled apart by President Trump’s “zero tolerance” border crackdown were at the core of what is now widely regarded as one of the biggest debacles of his presidency. The rapid implementation and sudden reversal of the policy whiplashed multiple federal agencies, forcing the activation of an HHS command center ordinarily used to handle hurricanes and other catastrophes.

After his 30-day deadline to reunite the “deleted” families passed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw lambasted the government for its lack of preparation and coordination.

“There were three agencies, and each was like its own stovepipe. Each had its own boss, and they did not communicate,” Sabraw said Friday at a court hearing in San Diego. “What was lost in the process was the family. The parents didn’t know where the children were, and the children didn’t know where the parents were. And the government didn’t know either.”

This account of the separation plan’s implementation and sudden demise is based on court records as well as interviews with more than 20 current and former government officials, advocates and contractors, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to give candid views and diagnose mistakes.

Trump officials have insisted that they were not doing anything extraordinary and were simply upholding the law. The administration saw the separations as a powerful tool to deter illegal border crossings and did not anticipate the raw emotional backlash from separating thousands of families to prosecute the parents for crossing the border illegally…

. . . .

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

Read “the team’s” entire much, much more detailed article at the link! By the end you will be disgusted by this Administrtion’s intentional dehumanization, stunning incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of any sense whatsoever of responsible government or prudent use of taxpayer resources.

No wonder deficits are soaring while essential services are being cut. This Administration consistently and intentionally misuses our taxpayer dollars on counterproductive and totally misguided efforts such as this which have little or nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate law enforcement. And think of the monumental amounts of attorney and court time being wasted because of the Government’s lawless, racially motivated actions! What if these efforts and resources were it toward actually solving problems, rather than creating them?

The Administraton’s explanations don’t make sense. In court before Judge Sabraw, DOJ attorneys have always conceded that intentional separation of children from parents for deterrence purposes would be unconstitutional. They initially claimed that there was no such policy.

But, it’s clear that separating children from parents for deterrence was exactly what Sessions, Nielsen, and others in the Administration intended. Moreover, they had no intention of ever reuniting the children with families, which is why they didn’t bother to set up a system to keep track of them,

This seems like a very clear and intentional violation of our Constitution and lack of candor before a tribunal by Sessions, not to mention failure to fully and in good faith comply with the court’s order. That should lead to civil liability under Bivens or punishment for contempt of court, or both.

Also, seems that the DOJ lawyers who misrepresented the nature of the program their boss was running should be in line for disciplinary action from the District Court and from their respective state bars. One would only have had to watch a Sessions news clip (as many reporters did) to know that what they were telling the court was untrue or at least required some further explanation from Sessions.

Back to Eugene Robinson. Why are we putting families seeking the protection of the law in jail instead of dishonest, disingenuous scofflaws like Jeff Sessions? Maybe “Ol Gonzo” shouldn’t be up in front of the young neo-Nazis leading “lock her up” chants. What goes around comes around!

And, if I were Judge Sabraw, I might want to know why Sessions was out there leading nationalist chants rather than busting his tail to comply fully with the court’s order for reunification of families.

We need regime change! Vote the scofflaws and their enablers out of office in November! Vote only for candidates pledged to hold Jeff Sessions and the other scofflaws in this Administration accountable for their actions through meaningful oversight (of which there has been none since Trump took office).

PWS

07-28-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

Related posts: