AMERICA’S REAL IMMIGRATION CRISIS: THE ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS – Page 141 – immigrationcourtside.com

NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY CONTINUES TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ADMINISTRATION’S STUPID AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS & POLICIES! — Jesica Yanez On NPR — I Speak With Sally Kidd @ Hearst News TV!

Jessica Yanez leads Yanez Immigration Law in Greensboro, NC.

Here’s her bio:

About Attorney Yañez

Attorney Yañez earned a Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in Spanish from UNC Greensboro and her Juris Doctor Degree from Elon University School of Law.

Since founding her practice in 2012, she and her team of legal assistants have assisted individuals from approximately 40 different countries in a broad range of immigration matters including family-based petitions, waivers, consular processing, removal defense, U visas, VAWA, naturalization and asylum cases.

In 2016, Attorney Yañez became a NC Board Certified Specialist in Immigration Law. For more information about the benefits of hiring a Board-Certified Specialist, click here: http://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/the-benefit-of-hiring-a-specialist/#standards.

Attorney Yañez also serves an Adjunct Professor of immigration law at Elon University School of Law.

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

Here is Sally Kidd, National Correspondent for Hearst News:

And, here’s the clip containing my interview:

http://www.wmur.com/article/president-trump-blasts-judicial-system/22003693

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

Thanks To Jessica and many other members of the NDPA for leading the charge against the Administration’ s cruel, immoral, and illegal policies!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-18

WHITE NATIONALIST ALERT AT JUSTICE: NEO-NAZI SESSIONS REPORTEDLY PROPOSING MASSIVE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION, REFUGEE ACT OF 1980, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS WITH RACIALLY TARGETED ABOLITION OF ASYLUM BY REGULATION! – Is Our Republic Teetering On The Brink?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/29/17514590/asylum-illegal-central-american-immigration-trump

LIND REPORTS FOR VOX NEWS:

The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is drafting a plan that would totally overhaul asylum policy in the United States.

Under the plan, people would be barred from getting asylum if they came into the US between ports of entry and were prosecuted for illegal entry. It would also add presumptions that would make it extremely difficult for Central Americans to qualify for asylum, and codify — in an even more restrictive form — an opinion written by Sessions in June that attempted to restrict asylum for victims of domestic and gang violence.

Vox has confirmed that the regulation is in the process of being evaluated, and has seen a copy of a draft of the regulation.

When the regulation is ready, it will be published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking, with 90 days for the public to comment before it’s enacted as a final regulation.

The version Vox saw may change before it’s finalized, or even before the proposal is published in the Federal Register. (The Department of Justice declined to comment.)

But as it exists now, the proposal is a sweeping and thorough revamp of asylum — tightening the screws throughout the asylum process.

One source familiar with the asylum process but not authorized to speak on the record described the proposed changes as “the most severe restrictions on asylum since at least 1965” — when the law that created the current legal immigration system was passed — and “possibly even further back.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the attorney general, along with the Department of Homeland Security, discretion over asylum standards — saying that the government “may grant asylum” to an applicant who they determine meets the definition of a refugee. But the proposed regulation would make it nearly impossible for Central Americans, including families, to earn the government’s approval.

It would eliminate the path that thousands of Central Americans, including families, take every month to seek asylum in the US: entering between ports of entry and presenting themselves to Border Patrol agents. It would make it all but impossible for victims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum — going even further than a June decision from Sessions that sought to limit asylum access for those groups. It would create a presumption against Central Americans who travel through Mexico on their way to the US.

Anyone convicted of entering the US illegally would become ineligible for asylum

What happens under current policy: Under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” initiative, all migrants who cross between ports of entry and are apprehended by Border Patrol are supposed to be criminally prosecuted for illegal entry.

That arrest can delay a person’s claim of asylum, but it doesn’t derail it. An asylum-seeker may not get their initial screening interview, which determines whether they’ll be allowed to file an asylum application and get a hearing, until after they’ve been prosecuted and convicted. And they definitely won’t get approved for asylum before their criminal conviction.

But the conviction for illegal entry doesn’t affect the asylum claim; as Customs and Border Protection puts it, the two are on “parallel tracks.”

What would happen under the new plan: The proposed regulation would bar anyone from getting asylum if they’d been convicted of illegal entry or illegal reentry. That means people who asked for asylum when they were apprehended at the border, but were prosecuted first, would get denied asylum.

In effect, under this new regulation, combined with the zero-tolerance prosecution initiative, no one would be able to come to the US and get asylum unless they presented themselves at a port of entry. Many asylum-seekers simply don’t have that option. Smugglers often prevent asylum-seekers from using official ports of entry, and many of those who do come to ports of entry are being forced to wait days or weeks, after being told there’s no room to process them right now. And asylum-seekers who come to ports of entry are often required to stay in immigration detention without bond until their case is complete.

The administration would almost certainly get sued over this provision if it ended up included in the finalized regulation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has the power to bar people from getting asylum (or other forms of relief from deportation) if they’ve committed “particularly serious crimes.” While there’s no definition of seriousness in the law, lawyers and immigration advocates would likely challenge the idea that illegal entry, a misdemeanor, is “particularly serious.”

But even if that provision is struck down or eliminated by the courts, another proposal in the draft regulation could have much the same effect. It would instruct immigration judges to consider how the asylum-seeker got into the US, and treat it as a significant factor in whether or not to grant asylum (since asylum-seekers have to show they deserve “favorable discretion” from the judge). So even if people who crossed between ports of entry weren’t officially banned from getting asylum, they would have a very hard time winning their cases in practice.

If adopted, the regulation, combined with the zero tolerance initiative, would allow the administration to set up assembly-line justice for asylum seekers, including families, entering the US. People who entered between official ports would be held by the Department of Homeland Security, prosecuted for illegal entry, convicted, then have their asylum applications denied and get deported.

While the Trump administration is currently trying to win the power to detain families for more than 20 days, if this regulation were enacted, they might not even need to. They could deny most asylum claims and deport the claimants within that time.

Victims of domestic or gang violence would be all but banned from asylum

What happens under current policy: US law limits asylum to people who are persecuted because of their race, religion, political opinions, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.

The government has been wrestling for decades with that last classification — what exactly counts as a “particular social group”? — and with whether someone is “persecuted” if they’re victimized by someone other than the government. These questions are key to the fate of many of the Central Americans (including children and families) who have come to the US to seek asylum in recent years, many of whom are claiming asylum based on domestic violence or gang victimization in their home countries.

In June, with a sweeping ruling overturning a case from the Board of Immigration Appeals, Sessions attempted to narrow the circumstances in which someone fleeing domestic or gang violence could qualify for asylum in the US — saying that, generally, victims of domestic or gang violence wouldn’t be eligible for asylum based on their victimization.

As I reported last week, though, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been cautious in implementing Sessions’s opinion. Most notably, while Sessions decreed that his ruling overturned any precedent that contradicted it, USCIS only told asylum officers to stop using the one precedent decision Sessions explicitly named as moot.

It looks like the DOJ may be trying to use regulation to accomplish the same goal — with even narrower definitions of “persecuted” and “particular social group.”

What would happen under the plan: The proposed regulation would add several restrictions to what could constitute a particular social group: a family, for example, wouldn’t be a social group unless the family had a visible national presence. Interpersonal violence or crime victimization, similarly, wouldn’t be the basis for social group membership unless they were happening on a national scale. Having been recruited by a gang would be explicitly prohibited as grounds for an asylum claim.

To qualify for asylum, an applicant would have to show that the people who persecuted her were also persecuting others on the same basis. Human-rights lawyers worry this could disqualify many legitimate asylum claims. One lawyer raises the example of a gay man in Russia who suffers a violent homophobic attack: Under the proposal, “this would not be persecution on account of sexual orientation unless you could prove that these attackers had previously persecuted other gay men.”

An asylum-seeker would be required to provide an exact definition of her “particular social group” when she was applying for asylum. And she wouldn’t be allowed to appeal a denial, or reopen a claim, on the basis of any group she hadn’t originally named.

It’s extremely difficult for anyone other than a trained immigration lawyer to know exactly what does and doesn’t count as a particular social group eligible for asylum. Under the proposed regulation, however, an asylum-seeker who didn’t know the precise nature of the basis for her persecution would be assumed to not really be a victim of persecution at all.

This standard wouldn’t just apply to final approvals or denials of asylum. The initial step for an asylee is what’s called a “credible fear” screening, during which an asylum officer decides whether the person has a credible fear of going back to their home country. The proposed rule would tighten standards for those, too.

Immigration lawyers and border advocates were already extremely concerned that Sessions’s May ruling would cause asylum officers to radically hike the standards for passing the screening interview (though the USCIS memo posted by Vox suggests that might not be the case just yet). If this regulation were finalized, however, it seems very possible that many people who are currently given the opportunity to apply for asylum would be turned away before they got the chance.

Central Americans would be penalized for not seeking asylum in Mexico

What happens under current policy: Many asylum seekers are Central Americans who come through Mexico to seek asylum in the US. The US is not allowed to simply turn them back and force them to seek asylum in Mexico instead. (The Trump administration is trying to get Mexico to sign a “safe third country” agreement that would allow them to do this, but Mexico appears unenthusiastic.) But the proposed regulation would make it a lot easier to deny their asylum claims based on not having sought asylum in Mexico first.

What would happen under the plan: Under the proposed rule, the government would generally withhold “favorable discretion” (and, therefore, deny the asylum claim) for anyone who had spent more than two weeks in another country en route to the US without seeking asylum there, or who had traveled through more than one country on the way to the US.

Many Central Americans, especially if they take the train through Mexico or travel on foot, take more than two weeks to travel through Mexico. And asylum-seekers from Honduras and El Salvador cross through Guatemala and Mexico to get to the US — meaning that they would almost certainly not earn the “favorable discretion” required to get their asylum claim approved.

Tightening the screws on the entire asylum process

The proposed regulation is extremely broad, with a lot more provisions — all of which would make it much harder for people to seek and get asylum. Some of the remaining ideas in the proposed draft include:

Limiting appeals for asylum-seekers who fail their screening interviews. Under current law, if an asylum-seeker fails her initial “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer, she can appeal for a judge to review her claim with fresh eyes — ignoring the fact that the asylum officer hadn’t found it a credible claim. Under the proposed regulation, judges would only be able to approve a credible-fear claim on appeal if there was clear evidence that the asylum officer had screwed up.

Rejecting incomplete applications first and letting them get completed later. Instead of returning incomplete asylum applications to the applicant and asking her to complete it, the government would reject the application. The applicant would still have 60 days to complete and resubmit the application before it was officially denied, but it’s not clear how applicants would be told about that — or whether they’d read beyond the word “rejected.”

Allowing judges to put evidence into the record on their own. The proposal would allow immigration judges considering asylum cases to unilaterally insert any information from credible sources into the record (as long as both the prosecutor and defense were informed). This provision would make it much easier for judges to insert information claiming that an asylum-seeker’s home country isn’t as dangerous for him as he claims — since asylum cases often hinge on whether there’s anywhere safe in the home country the asylum-seeker could live instead of the US.

Immigrants could be barred from asylum based on traffic offenses… In addition to the new prohibitions on asylum for immigration-specific crimes, the regulation would ban any applicant who’d been convicted of two or three misdemeanors (depending on what they were) from getting asylum.

This would have the biggest impact on unauthorized immigrants living in the US who get arrested and put in deportation proceedings, but ask for asylum to avert their deportation. (Under asylum law, someone can ask for asylum at any point within their first year of living in the US.)

In immigration policy, traffic offenses like driving without a license often don’t count as misdemeanors because in many states unauthorized immigrants aren’t allowed to get licenses. But the draft regulation makes clear that if driving without a license is a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction in question, it counts toward ineligibility.

…and blue states can’t fix eligibility by expunging immigrants’ records. Some Democratic state officials (most notably Gov. Jerry Brown in California) have started to use the pardon power to clear the criminal records of immigrants facing deportation. This regulation would do an end-run around that strategy.

Convictions that had been expunged or otherwise modified after the fact would still count as convictions if there was any evidence that the criminal record had been altered for immigration purposes. In other words, if Brown tried to expunge a record to make someone eligible for asylum, the fact that that’s why he did it would prevent it from stopping their deportation.

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

WOW!

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT ADOLF HITLER WOULD LOSE WORLD WAR II, YET HAVE HIS DIRECT IDEOLOGICAL DESCENDANTS IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 73 YEARS LATER?

Seems to me that we’re witnessing the end of the U.S. as a democratic republic and the beginning of a Nazi-style, White Nationalist, racist authoritarian regime that, with the help of a complacent Supreme Court led by a spineless Chief Justice and his group of GOP appointed sycophants, is basically tearing up our Constitution, spitting on it, and dismantling our democratic institutions before our eyes.

I do have to admit, however, that becoming a neo-Nazi, White Nationalist totalitarian state is likely to diminish our attractiveness as a destination for immigrants and anyone else: The “Stalin theory” of immigration control. And, I suppose that once the kids have been disposed of by returning them to death in the Northern Triangle, Trump & Sessions will use the cages to keep the rest of us in.

The New Due Process Army might be the last defender of our Constitution and human values!

PWS

06-30-18

GOOD NEWS FROM THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT IN ARLINGTON, VA BY TAL @ CNN: U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE JOHN MILO BRYANT SHOWS CONGRESS, PUBLIC, PRESS HOW IMMIGRATION COURT COULD & SHOULD WORK IF JEFF SESSIONS & THE DOJ WERE REMOVED FROM THE PICTURE & THE JUDGES WERE INDEPENDENT RATHER THAN BEING UNETHICALLY TOLD BY SESSIONS THAT THEY ARE “PARTNERS WITH DHS!”

The Wonderful Tal Kopan of CNN

Judge Roger Harris, Me, Judge Thomas Snow, & Judge John Milo Bryant (“The Non-Conformist”) head out to lunch on my last day at the Arlington Immigration Court, June 30, 2016

http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/immigration-court-hearings/index.html

‘Just be a kid, OK?’: Inside children’s immigration hearings

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

As each immigrant child took their seat in his courtroom for their hearing, Judge John M. Bryant started the same way.

“How are you doing today?” he’d ask.

“Muy bien,” most would answer.

In a span of about 45 minutes, Bryant — an immigration judge in Arlington, Virginia — checked in on the cases of 16 immigrants under the age of 20, all with attorneys and some with parents.

The day was known as a “master calendar hearing” — a swift introduction in court and the beginning of court proceedings for immigrants facing deportation.

The children had largely been in the country for some time, each fighting in court for the right to stay.

But though the immigration courts have long dealt with immigrant children, even those barely school age or younger, their turn through the unique, stand-alone immigration courts is getting new attention as the government’s “zero tolerance” border policy has sent thousands more children into the system without their parents.

The hearings were observed by six Democratic members of Congress: Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland; Rep. Don Beyer, whose Virginia district includes the court; Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico; and Reps. Pete Aguilar, Nanette Diaz Barragán and Norma Torres, all of California.

At a news conference afterward, Beyer called the session “One of the best-case scenarios of a master calendar hearing, a sympathetic judge with kids with lawyers.”

The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.

“We know that in vast numbers of cases, there is not proper representation,” Hoyer said, adding that some kids are “not old enough to spell their own names, let alone represent themselves in court.”

In each case, the attorneys described waiting for applications filed with the government, and all were quickly given court dates into 2019 to come back for another check-in. One, a boy named José who had just finished ninth grade, was there for his second check-in and for his full asylum hearing received a court date of May 11, 2021 — likely to be just as he is finishing high school in the US.

The youngest was a 6-year-old boy, Rodolfo, who was there with his attorney and father, though Rodolfo’s case was being heard by itself. As he did with most of the children, Bryant asked Rodolfo if he was in school, translated by an interpreter via headphones provided to every immigrant facing the court.

“Hoy?” Rodolfo asked, confused — “Today?”

Bryant cheerfully prompted Rodolfo about what grade he had finished — kindergarten — and his teacher’s name — Ms. Dani. Bryant said he still remembered his own kindergarten teacher, Ms. Sweeney, from many years prior. “Hasta luego,” Bryant told Rodolfo, giving him a next court date of May 30, 2019.

While all the children in Bryant’s courtroom on this afternoon had attorneys, the Arlington Immigration Court is not typical of the country, where closer to 1-in-3 children are represented in court. Bryant was also generous with the continuances requested by attorneys as they waited to hear from the government on applications for other visas for the children, despite uniform opposition by the government attorney in court.

“Mr. Wagner, your turn,” Bryant joked at one point to the government attorney present, who dutifully recited the government’s opposition to granting continuances solely on the basis of waiting to hear back on a visa application. Bryant than immediately picked a day on his calendar for the immigrant and attorney to return.

One attorney for a 12-year-old girl, Rosemary, who was there with her mother, said they had applied for a Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, which is for minors who have been abused, abandoned or neglected by a parent. Bryant asked the attorney if the application was before a “sweet or sour judge.”

“I think it’s going to be a problem. It may have to be appealed,” the attorney replied.

The judge granted them a court date on February 28 of next year.

“Have a nice summer,” he said to the girl. “Just be a kid, OK?”

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

“The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.” And, with very good reason!

No trace of the Jeff Sessions’s paranoia, xenophobia, bias, child abuse, and de-humanization of migrants here. It’s like one would expect a “real” U.S. Court to be run! Sadly, that’s not what’s happening in the rest of the country. Just ask folks in Charlotte, Atlanta, Stewart, Ga., or Houston how they are treated by Immigration Judges. It’s ugly, abusive, well documented, highly inappropriate, and needs to end!

Even more outrageously, rather than building on and replicating successful judicial models like Arlington, Sessions has actually adopted some of the worst imaginable “judicial” practices, encouraged bias, and has actually endorsed and empowered the actions of some of the most clearly biased and anti-immigrant, anti-asylum Immigraton Judges in the system. It’s a simply unacceptable waste of taxpayer money and abuse of our legal system by someone incapable of fulfilling his oath of office.

Imagine, with judges actually in control, lawyers for the respondents, time to prepare and file applications, empathy, courtesy, knowledge, kindness, concern for fairness, efficiency, and giving ICE’s obstructionist “rote objections” and other dilatory tactics encouraged and enabled by this Administration exactly the short shrift they so richly deserve, the U.S. Immigration Courts could potentially fulfill their original vision of “becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

And, ICE could be once again required to function in the same highly-professional, courteous, collegial, respectful, and helpful manner that they did in Arlington during the last Administration. It’s disgraceful that rudeness and unfairness have become the norm under Trump. Things like that used to get even Government lawyers fired, disbarred, or disciplined. Now they appear to win kudos.

And, having dockets run by experienced judicial professionals like Judge Bryant with the help of professional staff responsible to him and his colleagues would promote fairness, quality, and efficiency over the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere created by a biased, politicized, and totally incompetent Department of Justice and carried out by agency bureaucrats who aren’t judges themselves and are not qualified to administer a major court system.

Why not design a system “built for success” rather one that is built for failure and constant crisis? A well-functioning court system where “Due Process and Quality Are Job One” and which serves as a “level playing field” would actually help DHS Enforcement as well as the immigrants whose lives depend upon it. Fairness and Due Process are good for everyone. It’s also what our Constitution requires! Play the game fairly and professionally and let the chips fall where they may, rather than trying to “game the system” to tilt everything toward enforcement.

But, it’s not going to happen until either 1) Congress creates an independent U.S. Immigration Court, or 2) the Article III Courts finally step up to the plate, put an end to this travesty, remove the DOJ from its totally improper and unethical supervisory role, and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed “Special Master” to manage them with the goal of Due Process and judicial efficiency until Congress reorganizes them outside of the Executive Branch! Otherwise, the Article IIIs will have to do the job that Sessions won’t let the Immigration Courts perform!

Compare Judge Bryant’s professional performance with the “judicial meat processing plant/Due Process Denial Factory” being operated by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby on the Southern Border as described by Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post in my post from yesterday:

http://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/06/28/karen-tumulty-washpost-assembly-line-justice-is-already-the-norm-in-u-s-district-courts-at-the-border-as-go-along-to-get-along-u-s-magistrate-convicts-bewilder/

Who is the “real” judge here? It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to answer that one! Just some judges with the backbone, courage, and integrity not to “go along to get along” with Sessions’s assault on the integrity and independence of our justice system.

PWS

06-30-18

REVOLT @ ICE! – REAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS AT ICE RECOGNIZE THAT GONZO RACIST ENFORCEMENT POLICIES OF TRUMP, SESSIONS, & NIELSEN HARM LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT, WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY, & DESTROY AGENCY’S REPUTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS – PETITION NIELSEN FOR SEPARATE AGENCY!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeking-split-from-ice-agents-say-trumps-immigration-crackdown-hurts-investigations-morale/2018/06/28/7bb6995e-7ada-11e8-8df3-007495a78738_story.html

Nick Miroff reports for the Washington Post:

The political backlash against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has turned so intense that leaders of the agency’s criminal investigative division sent a letter last week to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen urging an organizational split.

The letter, signed by the majority of special agents in charge of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigative Division (HSI), offered a window into growing internal tension at the agency as an “Abolish ICE” protest movement has targeted its offices and won support from left-wing Democrats.

Though ICE is primarily known for immigration enforcement, the agency has two distinct divisions: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), a branch that carries out immigration arrests and deportations, and HSI, the transnational investigative branch with a broad focus on counterterrorism, narcotics enforcement, human trafficking and other crimes.

The letter signed by 19 special agents in charge urges Nielsen to split HSI from ICE, because anger at ERO immigration practices is harming the entire agency’s reputation and undermining other law enforcement agencies’ willingness to cooperate, the agents told Nielsen.

[‘Quit your jobs’: Protesters confront ICE workers at Washington headquarters]

Since President Trump’s inauguration, the state of California and several of the country’s largest cities have barred their law enforcement agents from cooperating with ICE by declaring themselves “sanctuary” jurisdictions. That has made it increasingly difficult for HSI agents to fight drug cartels and conduct major criminal investigations in the country’s largest urban areas, the letter said.

“The perception of HSI’s investigative independence is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of ERO’s civil immigration enforcement,” the agents wrote.

Trump took office promising to quickly deport “2 or 3 million” foreigners, and following his inauguration, ICE interior arrests jumped nearly 40 percent. In recent months, the agency resumed carrying out large-scale workplace raids, winning glowing praise from the president, who said Wednesday at a rally in North Dakota that ICE agents are “mean but have heart,” and that they are “liberating” U.S. communities from the MS-13 gang.

Trump officials say they fear the transnational gang, whose members the president calls “animals,” could take advantage of lax enforcement at the border.

In their letter to Nielsen, the agency’s top investigators painted a starkly different picture — telling her their crime-fighting capability is being stifled by politics.

“Many jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with HSI because of a perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration,” the investigators wrote. “Other jurisdictions agree to partner with HSI as long as the ‘ICE’ name is excluded from any public facing information.”

In one indication of eroding morale, the special agents told Nielsen that making HSI its own independent agency “will allow employees to develop a strong agency pride.”

The letter, marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” was first reported by the Texas Observer, which posted a copy.

ICE’s acting director, Thomas D. Homan, has been a vocal Trump supporter and an enthusiast of the president’s immigration agenda. But he has announced his retirement and is stepping down this month. A nominee to replace him has yet to be named.

Nielsen has not publicly responded to the letter.

A senior ICE official in Washington said the HSI agents’ letter was “not well received” at the agency’s headquarters, calling it “ill conceived and poorly timed” at a moment when so many staffers feel besieged by the backlash.

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

Not surprisingly, a regime built on lies, racism, and White Nationalism isn’t going to be good at much except lies, racism, and White Nationalism. And, that’s the perfect description of the Trump Administration.

Good for these courageous ICE agents! Maybe that’s where a future Administration should look when it comes time to rebuild, rename, and rebrand ICE to shed it’s well-deserved “American Gestapo” reputation earned under Trump, Sessions, and Homan.

And, contrary to the truly idiotic statement by an “obviously chicken” DHS “senior official,” this “rebellion” is a timely and reassuring sign that folks on the inside understand just how toxic the Trump/Sessions dishonest and racist immigration enforcement policy is to real law enforcement, which requires widespread tactical use of “prosecutorial discretion,” intelligent deployment of resources, respect for the courts and judges’ time, a willingness to “just say no” to broken and counterproductive laws that unfairly target racial groups, and, most of all, strategies to gain and keep community trust.

Trump & Sessions are completely inimical to real law enforcement and national security. That’s why they, and not undocumented individuals who are hard-working members of our communities, are an existential threat to the security, welfare, and very continued existence of our republic.

No country can survive a kakistocracy over a long period of time! That’s one thing that Trump, Sessions, and their White Nationalist cronies prove every single day!

The majority of Americans did not vote for this evil “clown show” (and their tone-deaf, unprincipled supporters) to govern us. Somehow, we let an unprincipled minority without concern for the common good, honesty, morality, or human decency seize control. If we don’t take our country back soon through the ballot box, it might be too late!

Get out the vote! Remove all of the clowns and their enablers! Like my “new buddy” George Will said last week: nobody should vote for a Republican this November! (Although to be fair, Georgie detests Democrats — he just doesn’t fear them as much).

PWS

06-29-17

DAHLIA LITHWICK @ SLATE: THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT THE “LAST MODERATE” JUSTICE KENNEDY – HE ALWAYS HAD A DARK SIDE & HIS TOADYING TO TRUMP THIS TERM WILL ENSURE A TARNISHED LEGACY!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-retirement-why-he-joined-team-trump.html

In his last year on the bench, the lifelong devotee of dignity and the rule of law joined Team Trump. What happened?

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

JUNE 27, 20187:14 PM

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivers speaks at the White House on April 10, 2017, in Washington.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It was always more fan fiction than reality that Justice Anthony Kennedy was a moderate centrist. Democrats liked to soothe themselves with the story that Kennedy was a moderate because he’d provided the fifth vote to support continued affirmative action, reproductive rights, and gay rights and had strung the left along with the tantalizing promise of someday finding an unconstitutional political gerrymander. But we always knew that Kennedy was a conservative, indeed a very conservative conservative. Recall that in the famous study done in 2008 by Richard Posner and William Landes, “Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the Supreme Court since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, including [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito, are currently sitting on the bench today.” And Kennedy? He was ranked in that study as the 10^th most conservative justice in the past century.

To the extent we wrote paeans to Kennedy, it was for his occasional defections in areas that materially affect the lives of millions of people—women, minorities, LGBTQ couples, voters, Guantanamo detainees. And to be sure, each of those votes was well worth it. But we knew that for each such vote, there was a Bush v. Gore, a Citizens United, a Shelby County. And this term ended, perhaps fittingly, with Kennedy voting with the conservatives to hobble public-sector unions, to support mandatory arbitration clauses and voter purges, and to increase the unchecked power of an already imperial presidency. As Richard Hasen noted on Tuesday, Kennedy’s work here was clearly done. His concurrence in the Muslim ban case essentially signaled that Kennedy had all but given up on the notion of the judiciary as a meaningful check on the other two branches. As Hasen correctly called it, that concurrence landed as “a general statement of judicial powerlessness to solve social problems and an abdication of responsibility on the part of the courts to enforce key parts of the Constitution, in favor of a plea for self-restraint on the part of elected officials.” From a man who devoted a career to the proposition that the courts alone could fix things, it sounded in the key of “I’m out.”

There will be myriad theories and hypotheses about why Kennedy all but gave up on his project of centrism, civility, norm preservation, and institutional self-preservation this year. I’ve never heard him speak so eloquently as when he was defending those values and celebrating the extraordinary role American courts and judges have played to foster such values in democracies around the world. One senses in his cri de coeur in NIFLA, Tuesday’s abortion-speech case, that he is viscerally bothered by progressive states like California attempting to be “forward thinking” (read: authoritarian) when it comes to truth in advertising around reproductive options. One senses in his vision of uncivil discourse in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case a growing frustration with what he sees as impolite discussions about religious liberty issues he wanted us to discuss civilly. One senses in his concurrence in the travel ban case a sort of stutter-step apology to “an anxious world” that watches the norms and institutions of constitutional democracy crumble.

As Mark Stern and I noted on Tuesday, it was hard to see Kennedy’s concurrence in that case as anything more than a concession that the last adult in the room was now leaving the building. Maybe it’s a fitting end to his career to say that the man who wanted everyone to speak to one another civilly and respectfully did what everyone else has done this year and threw in the towel. It’s hardly a stretch to say that Kennedy’s lasting caution from Obergefell—the marriage equality decision—was his request that the nation resolve the oncoming conflict between gay rights and religious dissenters by “engag[ing] those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.”

Yeah, that didn’t happen.

And so the formerly “centrist” Anthony Kennedy ended his Supreme Court career by taking sides, not simply in the spate of bombshell 5–4 decisions that came out in recent weeks. He took sides in a rhetorical war about the suffering of Christian bakers and pregnancy centers, and the language of “no you’re the radical” he now directs at liberals with whom he could once find common cause. It wasn’t so much that Kennedy ever represented the “center” of the court. He was no more the center than John Roberts will be the center of a vastly more conservative post-Kennedy Supreme Court. But Kennedy did become, for a time, a symbol of certain values around judging and justice—of acute concern that both sides be heard, of respect for the rule of law, and of solicitude for at least some communities that were invisible to his colleagues on the right. And to the extent that this was the center, it is perhaps apt that it falls away at the end of this term. Those institutional and rhetorical values feel like the relic of another time. Neither Sonia Sotomayor nor Samuel Alito has any patience for that kind of signaling anymore.

Democrats should rightly be terrified that Kennedy’s legacy around gay rights, reproductive rights, affirmative action, some kinds of racial justice, and student prayer are in immediate peril. And Democrats can now be fully assured that the Supreme Court will not step in to stop Donald Trump’s excesses. And to be sure, the reason the court will not stand up to future acts of Trumpism is that Kennedy, who tried to be the bridge at the court for so many decades, gave up and joined Team Trump.

Many of us predicted that Kennedy would not allow Trump to replace him with someone who would dismantle his legacy. We were wrong. Many of us believed that a lifelong devotee of dignity, civility, and the rule of law would not want his work tarnished by a president who routinely attacks individual judges and the very notion of an independent judiciary. We were wrong. That two of Anthony Kennedy’s last judicial acts included a letter that opened “My dear Mr. President” and a vote to grant that same president a virtual blank check on the national security front certainly suggests that nothing about a president who lies, bullies, and destabilizes the rule of law was any kind of real impediment to Kennedy’s departure.

We will debate in the coming months whether Kennedy tacked back to the right this year or if he was never anything but a staunch conservative who enjoyed occasional casual day trips to the left side of the bench. But one thing is beyond doubt: If there was anything like a “moderate center” inside the only branch of government not broken by polarization, it’s gone. Even the idea of such a thing is gone. For any of us who clung to such symbols, it’s a bracing reminder that there is no longer a center, or even a center built of make-believe.

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

Trump diminishes and corrupts every sycophant and toady, robed or not, who associates with, supports, or helps enable him and his White Nationalist Empire. Kennedy is no exception. Law is in the here and now. Actions speak louder than words. A judge is part of the problem or part of the solution. Kennedy has cemented his position among the former by failing to take action to be part of the latter.

PWS

06-29-18

KAREN TUMULTY @ WASHPOST: “ASSEMBLY LINE JUSTICE” IS ALREADY THE NORM IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS AT THE BORDER AS “GO ALONG TO GET ALONG” U.S. MAGISTRATE CONVICTS BEWILDERED AND DAZED NON-CRIMINALS WHILE MUTTERING MISLEADING PLATITUDES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-what-trumps-assembly-line-justice-looks-like/2018/06/27/16a67354-7a12-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.92044d40e736

MCALLEN, Tex.

When Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby stepped into the federal courtroom here Tuesday morning, 75 defendants rose to their feet.

Their ankles were shackled, and they wore headsets through which the proceedings would be translated into Spanish. In the hallway, just beyond the door, was a pile of handcuffs that had been removed before they entered the courtroom.

Most of the defendants appeared dressed in the same filthy, sweat-saturated clothes they had been wearing two days before, when they were apprehended crossing the Rio Grande aboard rafts.

CONTENT FROM PRIME VIDEO

“When you have diverse views, it makes the outcome for all people better.” – Justice Anne McKeigRead More

In all but 11 of their cases, this criminal misdemeanor was the first time they had ever been found to have violated U.S. law.

Ormsby informed them his was not an immigration court. Many had already signed away their rights to further proceedings and had orders for what is known as “expedited removal.” They had done that before the 17 lawyers of the public defender’s office had met with any of them for the first time, just hours before.

The next two hours would see each one of them plead guilty and be sentenced, most to time already served.

With few exceptions, each case would be dealt with in under 75 seconds.

This was just the morning docket. It is what President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy looks like here, where busloads of recently detained migrants roll up to the federal courthouse several times a day. Ormsby invited me and a handful of other observers there to sit in the jury box, because there was no room anywhere else.

The president contends that even this assembly-line version of justice is more than what those caught entering the country illegally should get.

“We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country,” Trump tweeted Sunday. “When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order.”

On that latter point, the president is correct — but it is for the reverse of the reasoning he offers. His zero-tolerance policy is putting even more stress on a legal system that already gives migrants far less than their day in court.

The outcome for many might be different if they had fuller access to the legal system, to which they are entitled in theory if not practice, and given an opportunity to make their case to stay in this country.

Trump has mocked proposals for adding to the number of immigration judges, who handle separate proceedings for those who want to remain.

“We have thousands of judges already,” he has claimed. That is incorrect. The number actually stands at fewer than 350 across the country. They are facing a backlog of more than 700,000 cases.

Just as critical as the scarcity of judges is the fact that so few migrants ever have a chance to consult an attorney.

Only about 14 percent of those who are detained have access to counsel, says American Bar Association President Hilarie Bass, who was here from Miami. She added that migrant adults with lawyers win slightly more than half their cases and get to stay in this country, while 9 out of 10 of those without representation lose and are deported.

For unaccompanied children, the disparity in outcomes is even greater. As Bass noted: “How can you ask a 12-year-old to walk into court and make a case for themselves?”

Under Trump’s zero-tolerance policy, more migrants are being prosecuted and deported on the border, rather than being sent to other parts of the country where they can await trial while staying with relatives or others who can take them in. That has compounded the challenge, because it adds to the backlog in this region and makes it more difficult for migrants to find lawyers.

In the current crisis, platoons of lawyers are arriving weekly to volunteer their services, but there are not nearly enough, says Kimi Jackson, director of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project. “What we need most here are Spanish-speaking immigration attorneys, particularly ones who can stay a little longer.” The need will remain for the foreseeable future, long after the journalists and cameras have moved on to the next story.

And even if help comes, it will be too late for most of those who appeared before Ormsby. As he worked his way through their cases, he expressed sympathy for the circumstances of poverty and violence that brought them from dangerous places in Honduras and El Salvador and Mexico to his courtroom. He wished them and their families well and urged them to go through the process of coming to the United States legally.

“Seeing the type of people you appear to be,” the magistrate added, “I hope that you will be successful with that.”

But everyone there knew that was a wish, and one unlikely to come true.

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

Mostly first offenders who didn’t belong in criminal court anyway.
Why would nonviolent first offenders be shackled in court?
Anybody understand what they are pleading guilty to?
Everybody understand that they have a right to a full trial at which the Government would have to prove guilt?
Anybody understand what a port of entry is?
Anybody just looking for an officer to apply for asylum?
Anybody realize there are strong legal arguments that criminal sanctions can’t be invoked against good faith asylum seekers under international treaties to which the U.S. is party?
Anybody know the name of their court-appointed lawyer?
Anybody have a chance to speak with their lawyer in private in Spanish?
Anybody have a “know your rights” presentation about the immigration system?
Anybody know what a “credible fear” interview is, how to request one from the DHS, and how to get review of a denial?
Anybody know that asylum applicants who pass credible fear can request bond?
Anybody understand the consequences of a conviction?
Anybody pressured to plead guilty to get their kids back or get out of detention?
Anybody know how the asylum process works and how to apply?
Anybody know how important lawyers are for asylum seekers and how to get in touch with local pro bono lawyers?
Anybody separated from kids?
Anybody know that the Government has been ordered by a more conscientious Federal Judge to reunite families?

We’ll probably never know the answers, because that might have exceeded Judge Ormsby’s 75 second attention span and cut into his productivity stats.

I’ve commented before on the Judge Ormsby’s judicial performance (or lack thereof).

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2E9

Judge Ormsby should be in line for a Jeff Sessions “Volume Is Everything — Due Process Is Nothing” award! He appears to be just the type of subservient judicial toady Trump & McConnell would love to have on the Supremes. And, I wouldn’t let the U.S. District Judges who are in charge of this judicial farce off the hook either.

Someday, the true history of the abuses of human values, human rights, and our Constitution now going on at our border under a White Nationalist regime will be written. And the “go along to get along” crowd will be held accountable for their conduct; by the judgment of history, if not by the law.

PWS

06-29-18

JOIN THE EXPERTS FROM GEORGETOWN LAW! GET SOME MUCH-NEEDED TRUTH, FACTS, AND HONESTY ABOUT ASYLUM, REFUGEES, IMMIGRATION, DUE PROCESS, AND THE BORDER! – Join Professor Andy Schoenholtz and Michelle Brane (’94) Of The Women’s Refugee Commission @ 10 AM This Morning On Facebook!

Looking for clarity on the law and latest policies affecting children and families separated at the border? Professor Andrew Schoenholtz and Michelle Brané (L’94) of the Women’s Refugee Commission will discuss the status of reunifying families, what’s driving migration and where the administration’s zero-tolerance policy goes from here. Watch the conversation live on Georgetown Law’s Facebook page 10:00 AM today!

https://www.facebook.com/georgetownlaw/videos/10156315406050149/]

AND, FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THE ‘LIVE’ PRESENTATION, HERE’S THE VIDEO:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.facebook.com/georgetownlaw/videos/10156315406050149/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1530298234029000&usg=AFQjCNECqMvBVDNt89rzbWqzWwXrD3Oe-A

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

Andy & Michelle are long-time friends and two of the “best ever.” Andy (co-author of Refugee Roulette) is my colleague at Georgetown Law these days, and Michelle worked at the BIA as an Honors Program Attorneys during my tenure as BIA Chair.

Start your day with a breath of fresh air and some much-needed truth about refugees, migrants, the law, and how we are treating the most vulnerable among us.

PWS

06-28-18

GONZO’S WORLD: WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE JUSTICE AT JUSTICE – Biased, Disingenuous, Child Abuser Sessions Can’t Possibly Run A “Fair & Impartial Judicial System” – Stench Won’t Wear Off Of Article IIIs Who “Go Along To Get Along” With This Outrageous Mockery Of Due Process For Vulnerable Migrants!

Home » Office of Public Affairs » News

SHARE

JUSTICE NEWS

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

Los Angeles, CA

~

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Richmond for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership at the Foundation, the Federalist Society, and Kirkland Ellis. I’m told that your daughter is an AUSA—congratulations on that, as well.

I want to thank Governor Wilson, U.S. Attorneys Nick Hanna and Adam Braverman, District Attorneys Greg Totten, Summer Stephen, our former District Attorneys Steve Cooley and Ed Jagels. And congratulations to our new District Attorneys-Elect Cynthia Zimmer and Jeannine Pacioni. And thank you to John Cox for being here as well.

I especially want to thank President Rushford for his remarks and Legal Director Kent Scheidegger for this organization’s strong support for crime victims, for law enforcement, and for the Department of Justice in both the courtroom and in the public arena.

You stand up for the idea that we can bring down our crime rates through smart policies and more sophisticated policing. That is exactly right. You know as well as I do that crime rates aren’t like the tides—we can make a difference.

On behalf of President Donald Trump, I especially want to thank you all for your strong voice in speaking out for the enforcement of our immigration laws.

This is a decisive issue. As the President often says, “a country without borders is not a country.” I don’t know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

In the United States, we have the most generous immigration laws in the world. We take 1.1 million people on a path to citizenship every year. Another 700,000 come here to take jobs. Another half a million come here to take spots in our colleges and universities.

These are generous laws.

And yet, when we enforce them, we get attacked in the media by the so-called elites and their special interests.

I am convinced that the people of this country support these efforts. In the 2016 election, voters said loud and clear that they wanted a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest. They said we’ve waited long enough.

I believe that this is one of the main reasons that President Trump won. He promised to tackle this crisis that had been ignored or made worse by so many before him. And now he’s doing exactly what the American people asked him to do.

Yet it seems like these same people who have been passing the buck on this crisis for decades haven’t learned anything. They’re still pushing the same old agenda.

They are fighting desperately to stop the good and decent wishes of the American people from being carried out.

They don’t like it when we deport people—even criminal aliens. They don’t like it when we stop people at the border—even those smuggling children. They don’t like interior enforcement and they don’t like work place enforcement. No matter what we do, they complain.

From coast to coast—perhaps especially on this coast—there are politicians who think that having any border at all is mean-spirited, unkind, or even bigoted.

The vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee recently wore a t-shirt that says “I don’t believe in borders.” I wonder what his neighbors think about that.

The name of the group that organized the Caravan to stampede our borders is “People Without Borders.”

The Attorney General of this state, Xavier Becerra says that “there’s really no difference between my parents and [illegal] immigrants except a piece of paper.” Paperwork, meaning compliance with our law, is important. And it’s a shame that I must say this to the top law enforcement official in California.

Last week a candidate for governor of New York said that we should “abolish ICE,” which she calls “a terrorist organization.” And she’s got 25 percent support in the latest primary polls.

A few months ago, I paid a visit to Sacramento. You may have heard about it. While I was there, the Mayor of Oakland called illegal aliens “law-abiding Oaklanders.” By definition, of course, that is not true.

In 2013, Hillary Clinton reportedly said in one secret speech, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” This is the presidential nominee of a major political party.

And these are just the explicit, overt examples. There are plenty of other examples of politicians who want to sound like moderates but whose votes and actions evidence a radical open borders agenda – not lawfulness. Apparently, even the libertarian CATO institute is in this camp.

The rhetoric we hear from the other side on this issue—as on so many others—has become radicalized. We hear views on television today that are on the lunatic fringe. And what is perhaps more galling is the hypocrisy. These same people live in gated communities and are featured at events where you have to have an ID even to hear them speak.

And if you try to scale their fence, believe me, they’ll be only too happy to have you arrested and separated from your family.

They want borders in their lives but not yours and not the American people’s. This is why the American people are sick of the lip service and the hypocrisy. They are sick of the politicians who abandon their promises as soon as the mainstream media criticizes them. They’ve seen it for decades. And now they are supporting a President who is on their side.

President Trump has been quite sensible. He made a generous offer to those who oppose this in Congress. He offered to give DACA recipients legal status if we can build a wall, close the maddening loopholes in our legal system, and switch from chain migration and the visa lottery to a merit-based system.

Their refusal of this offer should be baffling to any objective observer.

He simply asked that they agree to a serious solution to the problem. Why wouldn’t you want to end the illegality?

On Wednesday, President Trump ordered this administration to ensure that when we apprehend illegal aliens at the border and hold them for criminal prosecution and to adjudicate their immigration claims, we do what we can to keep families together.

How did the open borders crowd respond?

No. Now they don’t want them held or deported at all.

Does that surprise you?

When they win, they make demands. And when they lose, they make demands. I think there’s a lesson in that.

We know which side of the debate is radical.

The so-called elites will always find an excuse to attack President Trump. They will not be satisfied as long as we are enforcing our borders.

As long as there is any immigration enforcement, they will oppose any effective limits.

But in spite of the critics, we are following the President’s executive order—and the President is listening to the American people.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice filed a request—right here in the Central District of California to modify the terms of the Flores consent decree, which is what keeps us from detaining alien children with their parents for more than 20 days while their asylum cases are pending. We are asking the court to let ICE detain illegal alien children together with their parent or legal guardian in family residential facilities.

This consent decree—and case law right here in California that has expanded it—has had disastrous consequences for illegal alien children.

In 2015, the Department of Justice under President Obama also tried to modify the consent decree for this exact reason. But it was blocked. And so the word got out that if you crossed our border illegally you would not be detained as long as you brought a child with you.

The results won’t surprise you. The number of people illegally crossing our border with children went up dramatically. In 2013, there were 15,000. This year we’re on pace for 88,000—a five-fold increase in five years.

And we know how well ‘catch and release’ worked. Last year there were 40,000 removal orders issued for people that didn’t show up for their hearings.

And it’s no wonder: our broken immigration laws are telling people that they can come here illegally. So why wait in line?

If we don’t fix our laws, then the flow of illegal immigration is not going to stop—and with it, the gangs, the drug cartels, and the human trafficking, including of children.

That’s why the President made clear that we are going to do everything in our power to avoid separating families—but we are still going to work to prosecute all of those who come here illegally.

By definition, we ought to have zero illegal immigration in this country. But we have more than 1 million illegal aliens just in the Los Angeles area. It is widely estimated that there are more illegal aliens in California than there are people in New Mexico.

There is no other area of American law with this level of illegality.

This is a big group of people. Too many of them have committed crimes here. By definition, every one of those crimes is preventable.

Thousands of illegal aliens are sitting in California jails that you pay for. 39,000 are in federal prisons. Another 16,000 are in custody of the U.S. Marshals.

Those are people who had to be tracked down and arrested by our law enforcement—every time, putting them in potentially dangerous situations.

In this city, Americans have been victimized countless times by people who shouldn’t even be here.

Here are just a few of the people arrested by ICE just this month for crimes that would have been prevented with effective border enforcement:
a gang member who had been convicted of rape,
a man convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and
a man convicted of assaulting an officer, beating his wife, and assault with a deadly weapon.

I could go on and on. These are the kind of people that sanctuary politicians want to keep in California. This is who they want to give sanctuary to.

The open borders politicians say they’re being compassionate. But where is their compassion for that rape victim? How do they explain to her that her attack happened because of their so-called compassion for her rapist.

Consider the rise of sanctuary policies.

It may sound nice, but these are de facto open borders policies. At their root, they are essentially a rejection of all immigration law.

Think about it. Under sanctuary policies, someone who illegally crosses the border on a Monday and arrives in Sacramento or San Francisco on Wednesday is home free—never to be removed.

Police are often forced to release criminal aliens back into the community—no matter the crime. Police may be forced to release pedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and arsonists back into the communities where they had no right to be in the first place.

That has real consequences.

ICE tells us that they are able to locate only about 6 percent of the criminals they ask sanctuary jurisdictions to turn over. The other 94 percent are walking free and often on their way to their next victim.

If they won’t allow us to deport someone who enters illegally and then commits another crime—who will they agree to deport? Sadly, we know the answer to this. Nobody.

And that sends a message around the world. People in developing nations don’t know the laws on our books. But they see what we do. And so do the gangs and drug cartels. They see whether we deport criminals or not. They see whether we have a border wall or not. They see whether we reward illegal aliens with benefits or not.

That’s why, under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice is working to end sanctuary policies. In March, we sued the state of California over their sanctuary laws. And you’ve stood by us all the way. Thank you for your strong amicus brief and thank you for your strong support.

I am confident that together we are going to win that case. It has been settled since 1819 that a state cannot actively attempt to undermine the execution of federal law or discriminate against the federal government.

The American people are with us on this issue. One poll last year showed that 80 percent of the American people oppose sanctuary policies. Most cities are not sanctuary cities.

We have also supported the state of Texas in its efforts to ban sanctuary cities. And since I became Attorney General, we have filed briefs to defend state or local law enforcement in about thirty cases. A number of courts have ruled in these cases that state or local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts does not violate federal law.

We have stopped rewarding sanctuary cities with taxpayer dollars. If sanctuary cities want to receive federal law enforcement grants, then they should stop impeding federal law enforcement. That is not too much to ask.

This is the Trump era. We are enforcing our laws again. We know whose side we’re on: we’re on the side of police, and we’re on the side of the American people.

The radical open border crowd should declare whose side they are on.

But we are resolute. We are going to keep fighting. With President Trump and with your strong support for police and for the rule of law, I am confident that we will turn the tide and keep the American people safe.

Speaker:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Topic(s):

Immigration

Component(s):

Office of the Attorney General

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

That a Government official supposedly charged with protecting justice for everyone in America — NOT just citizens or GOP voters — and who took an oath to uphold the Constitution would make such an outrageously biased statement in public and not be booed off the stage shows just how empowered “White Nationalist Nation” has become under Trump, Sessions, and Miller.

Don’t expect any help from Chief Justice Roberts and his gang over at the Supremes.

And no, “Gonzo Apocalyoto,” most of us fighting to uphold the Constitution, the rule of law, international law, human values, and to defend human dignity against you and your “Fat Cat” cronies like Trump and GOP “bankrollers,” do not live in gated communities and usually you can hear us speak for free. You choose not to listen to the true “voices of virtue.”

Just a brief fact check: The majority of American voters didn’t want Donald Trump to be their President — the Electoral College elected him, even though millions more American voters would have preferred his opponent.

Also, why is Gonzo allowed to go around spreading the clear untruth that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are a major source of crime? It’s been proven untrue over and over. And, when you discard “bogus crimes” such as misdemeanor illegal entry and traffic violations, migrants of all types are significantly more law-abiding than native-born Americans.

Indeed, the vulnerable women and children refugees from the Northern Triangle that Gonzo is harming and persecuting are actually fleeing from severe violence — a “low-grade war zone” as described by NBC correspondent Richard Engel — that Gonzo and his group of scofflaws encourage and feed by falsely characterizing them as “mere economic migrants,” telling them to get in a “nonexistent line” to migrate legally, intentionally skewing and misconstruing asylum law against them, and basically telling them to “join the gangs, cooperate with them, or die — we really don’t value your lives at all.” How sick is that? About as sick as abusing little children and asylum seekers.

PWS

06-27-18

MY CLIP TODAY FROM CNN’S “AT THIS HOUR WITH KATE BOLDUAN” — Ah, The Fleeting Nature Of Fame . . . If they Had Only Gotten My Name Right — That’s When You Know You’re Not In Milwaukee Any More!

https://www.cnn.com/shows/at-this-hour

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

Obviously, I need an agent!

PWs

06-27-18

NEWS FROM THE KAKISTOCRACY: HOW TOTALLY INCOMPETENT IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN SOLVING THEIR SELF-CREATED “CHLD ABUSE CRISIS?” — Need You Ask?

6 children in 6 days, thousands left: Inside the family reunifications

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration has more than 2,000 children it separated from their parents in its custody. In a six-day span, that number only went down by six children.

It’s still unknown, though, whether those children were reunited with parents, other family or otherwise transferred out of Health and Human Services custody, and the government has not answered questions about the circumstances of their release.

The stories are heart wrenching.

A Guatemalan woman sued the government after her 7-year-old son was separated from her, and in the middle of those proceedings was able to reunite with her son.

As Beata Mariana de Jesus Mejia-Mejia embraced her son, Darwin, at the Baltimore Washington International Airport for the first time in more than a month, she cried.

“I love you,” she said in Spanish, between sobs.

But thousands more parents remain in limbo.

The Annunciation House, which hosts undocumented immigrants in El Paso, Texas, received 32 separated parents on Sunday upon their release from detention. According to the parents, the average child’s age is 10, and just three of the parents had spoken with their child personally since they were separated.

In an emotional news conference, some of the parents told their stories of trying to find their children in government custody.

One woman, Miriam, from Guatemala, said she didn’t have a chance to say a word to her 4-year-old son before he was taken from her at dawn while he was fast asleep — he was still asleep when they put him on a truck and drove away, she said.

When she was finally able to reach him Monday by phone in New York, she said he refused to speak to her. CNN was unable to confirm how much time had passed since their separation. But as Miriam tells it, it was long enough to make an impression on him.

“He’s mad at me,” she said, tears in her eyes. “He thinks that I abandoned him.”

Data hard to come by

The administration has been reticent to release much data about the results of its prosecution policy that ended up separating more than 2,000 families at the border in about six weeks. But the new figures show how slow the pace has been to put those families back together — even as a federal judge has now ordered the government to do so in 30 days.

On Tuesday, the secretary of Health and Human Services said there were 2,047 migrant children in its care as a result of being separated from their parents at the border so the parents could be prosecuted on criminal charges. Six days prior, the government had said there were 2,053 such children.

That day, June 20, was when President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing course on his administration’s decision to separate families — ordering they be held together even during prosecution. In implementing the order, Border Patrol within hours stopped referring parents for criminal charges, thus effectively ending the “zero-tolerance” policy for the time being.

Late Tuesday night, a federal judge in California issued a nationwide order that required the administration to stop detaining immigrant families separately, aside from special circumstances; to reunify parents with children under the age of 5 within two weeks; and to reunite parents with any children aged 5 and over within 30 days.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/six-children-families-separated-reunifications/index.html

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

Sounds like “business as usual” at DHS in the Age of Trump & Sessions. Sometimes, their incompetence at governing tempers their cruelty and inhumanity.

But, in this case, it actually multiplies the damage.

How long until some Federal Judge holds Sessions & Nielsen in contempt? Sanctions DOJ lawyers for misrepresentations in court? What about Bivens damage suits against Sessions, Nielsen & company since they are violating well-established Constitutional rights to Due Process?

PWS

06-27-18

SUPREME HIT ON CONSTITUTION: 5-4 COURT COULD GIVE TRUMP FREE REIN ON IMMIGRATION – ADMINISTRATION WINS BIG IN TRUMP V. HAWAII!

Trump v. Hawaii17-965_h315

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, June 30, 2018

MAJORITY: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

CONCURRING OPINIONS: KENNEDY, J., and THOMAS, J., filed concurring opinions.

DISSENTING OPINIONS: BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.

COURT SYLLABUS:

In September 2017, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, seek- ing to improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the United States by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the infor- mation needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present a security threat. The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. Foreign states were selected for inclusion based on a re- view undertaken pursuant to one of the President’s earlier Executive Orders. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Securi- ty (DHS), in consultation with the State Department and intelligence agencies, developed an information and risk assessment “baseline.” DHS then collected and evaluated data for all foreign governments, identifying those having deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns, as well as other countries “at risk” of failing to meet the baseline. After a 50-day period during which the State Department made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient. She recommended entry restrictions for certain nationals from all of those countries but Iraq, which had a close cooperative re- lationship with the U. S. She also recommended including Somalia, which met the information-sharing component of the baseline stand- ards but had other special risk factors, such as a significant terrorist presence. After consulting with multiple Cabinet members, the Pres- ident adopted the recommendations and issued the Proclamation.

2

TRUMP v. HAWAII Syllabus

Invoking his authority under 8 U. S. C. §§1182(f) and 1185(a), he de- termined that certain restrictions were necessary to “prevent the en- try of those foreign nationals about whom the United States Gov- ernment lacks sufficient information” and “elicit improved identity- management and information-sharing protocols and practices from foreign governments.” The Proclamation imposes a range of entry re- strictions that vary based on the “distinct circumstances” in each of the eight countries. It exempts lawful permanent residents and pro- vides case-by-case waivers under certain circumstances. It also di- rects DHS to assess on a continuing basis whether the restrictions should be modified or continued, and to report to the President every 180 days. At the completion of the first such review period, the Pres- ident determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.

Plaintiffs—the State of Hawaii, three individuals with foreign rela- tives affected by the entry suspension, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii—argue that the Proclamation violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforce- ment of the restrictions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Proclamation contravened two provisions of the INA: §1182(f), which authorizes the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and §1152(a)(1)(A), which provides that “no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” The court did not reach the Establishment Clause claim.

Held:
1. This Court assumes without deciding that plaintiffs’ statutory

claims are reviewable, notwithstanding consular nonreviewability or any other statutory nonreviewability issue. See Sale v. Haitian Cen- ters Council, Inc., 509 U. S. 155. Pp. 8–9.

2. The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion grant- ed to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the Unit- ed States. Pp. 9–24.

(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well with- in this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered al-

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 3

Syllabus

iens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.

Even assuming that some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s findings is appropriate, but see Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600, plaintiffs’ attacks on the sufficiency of the findings cannot be sustained. The 12-page Proclamation is more detailed than any prior order issued under §1182(f). And such a searching in- quiry is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President in this sphere. See, e.g., Sale, 509 U. S., at 187–188.

The Proclamation comports with the remaining textual limits in §1182(f). While the word “suspend” often connotes a temporary de- ferral, the President is not required to prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restriction. Like its predecessors, the Procla- mation makes clear that its “conditional restrictions” will remain in force only so long as necessary to “address” the identified “inadequa- cies and risks” within the covered nations. Finally, the Proclamation properly identifies a “class of aliens” whose entry is suspended, and the word “class” comfortably encompasses a group of people linked by nationality. Pp. 10–15.

(b) Plaintiffs have not identified any conflict between the Proc- lamation and the immigration scheme reflected in the INA that would implicitly bar the President from addressing deficiencies in the Nation’s vetting system. The existing grounds of inadmissibility and the narrow Visa Waiver Program do not address the failure of certain high-risk countries to provide a minimum baseline of reliable infor- mation. Further, neither the legislative history of §1182(f) nor his- torical practice justifies departing from the clear text of the statute. Pp. 15–20.

(c) Plaintiffs’ argument that the President’s entry suspension vio- lates §1152(a)(1)(A) ignores the basic distinction between admissibil- ity determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once §1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility, §1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on national- ity and other traits. Had Congress intended in §1152(a)(1)(A) to con- strain the President’s power to determine who may enter the country,

4

TRUMP v. HAWAII Syllabus

it could have chosen language directed to that end. Common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s delegated authority under §1182(f). Presidents have re- peatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality. And on plaintiffs’ reading, the President would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic, or even if the United States were on the brink of war. Pp. 20–24.

3. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Proclamation violates the Establish- ment Clause. Pp. 24–38.

(a) The individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to chal- lenge the exclusion of their relatives under the Establishment Clause. A person’s interest in being united with his relatives is suffi- ciently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III injury in fact. Cf., e.g., Kerry v. Din, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 24–26.

(b) Plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclamation was religious animus and that the President’s stated concerns about vetting protocols and national security were but pretexts for discrim- inating against Muslims. At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the cam- paign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the President’s statements, but the signifi- cance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neu- tral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive re- sponsibility. In doing so, the Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself. Pp. 26–29.

(c) The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “funda- mental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792. Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a cir- cumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly bur- dens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen. That review is lim- ited to whether the Executive gives a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 769, but the Court need not define the precise contours of that narrow in- quiry in this case. For today’s purposes, the Court assumes that it may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of apply- ing rational basis review, i.e., whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence may be considered, but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 5

Syllabus

be understood to result from a justification independent of unconsti- tutional grounds. Pp. 30–32.

(d) On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny, a common thread has been that the laws at issue were “divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 635. The Proclama- tion does not fit that pattern. It is expressly premised on legitimate purposes and says nothing about religion. The entry restrictions on Muslim-majority nations are limited to countries that were previous- ly designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. Moreover, the Proclamation reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple Cabinet officials and their agencies. Plaintiffs challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom, but the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Pro- ject, 561 U. S. 1, 33–34.

Three additional features of the entry policy support the Govern- ment’s claim of a legitimate national security interest. First, since the President introduced entry restrictions in January 2017, three Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Sudan, and Chad—have been re- moved from the list. Second, for those countries still subject to entry restrictions, the Proclamation includes numerous exceptions for vari- ous categories of foreign nationals. Finally, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants. Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. Pp. 33–38.

878 F. 3d 662, reversed and remanded.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE BRYER’S DISSENT:

And, perhaps most importantly, if the Government is not applying the Proclamation’s exemption and waiver system, the claim that the Proclamation is a “Muslim ban,” rather than a “security-based” ban, becomes much stronger. How could the Government successfully claim that the Proclamation rests on security needs if it is ex- cluding Muslims who satisfy the Proclamation’s own terms? At the same time, denying visas to Muslims who meet the Proclamation’s own security terms would support the view that the Government excludes them for reasons based upon their religion.

Unfortunately there is evidence that supports the sec-

4 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting

ond possibility, i.e., that the Government is not applying the Proclamation as written. The Proclamation provides that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security “shall coordinate to adopt guidance” for consular officers to follow when deciding whether to grant a waiver. §3(c)(ii). Yet, to my knowledge, no guidance has issued. The only potentially relevant document I have found consists of a set of State Department answers to certain Frequently Asked Questions, but this document simply restates the Proclamation in plain language for visa appli- cants. It does not provide guidance for consular officers as to how they are to exercise their discretion. See Dept. of State, FAQs on the Presidential Proclamation, https:// travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information- resources/presidential-proclamation-archive/2017-12-04- Presidential-Proclamation.html (all Internet materials as last visited June 25, 2018).

An examination of publicly available statistics also provides cause for concern. The State Department reported that during the Proclamation’s first month, two waivers were approved out of 6,555 eligible applicants. Letter from M. Waters, Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs, to Sen. Van Hollen (Feb. 22, 2018). In its reply brief, the Government claims that number increased from 2 to 430 during the first four months of implementation. Reply Brief 17. That number, 430, however, when compared with the number of pre-Proclamation visitors, accounts for a miniscule percentage of those likely eligible for visas, in such categories as persons requiring medical treatment, academic visitors, students, family members, and others belonging to groups that, when considered as a group (rather than case by case), would not seem to pose security threats.

Amici have suggested that there are numerous appli- cants who could meet the waiver criteria. For instance, the Proclamation anticipates waivers for those with “sig-

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 5

BREYER, J., dissenting

nificant business or professional obligations” in the United States, §3(c)(iv)(C), and amici identify many scholars who would seem to qualify. Brief for Colleges and Universities as Amici Curiae 25–27; Brief for American Council on Education et al. as Amici Curiae 20 (identifying more than 2,100 scholars from covered countries); see also Brief for Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, Inc., asAmicus Curiae 14–15 (identifying technology and business leaders from covered countries). The Proclamation also anticipates waivers for those with a “close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent)” in the United States, §3(c)(iv)(D), and amici identify many such individuals affected by the Proclamation. Brief for Labor Organiza- tions as Amici Curiae 15–18 (identifying children and other relatives of U. S. citizens). The Pars Equality Cen- ter identified 1,000 individuals—including parents and children of U. S. citizens—who sought and were denied entry under the Proclamation, hundreds of whom seem to meet the waiver criteria. See Brief for Pars Equality Center et al. as Amici Curiae 12–28.

Other data suggest the same. The Proclamation does not apply to asylum seekers or refugees. §§3(b)(vi), 6(e). Yet few refugees have been admitted since the Proclama- tion took effect. While more than 15,000 Syrian refugees arrived in the United States in 2016, only 13 have arrived since January 2018. Dept. of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Interactive Reporting, Refugee Processing Center, http://ireports.wrapsnet.org. Similarly few refugees have been admitted since January from Iran (3), Libya (1), Yemen (0), and Somalia (122). Ibid.

The Proclamation also exempts individuals applying for several types of nonimmigrant visas: lawful permanent residents, parolees, those with certain travel documents, dual nationals of noncovered countries, and representa- tives of governments or international organizations. §§3(b)(i)–(v). It places no restrictions on the vast majority

6 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting

of student and exchange visitors, covering only those from Syria, which provided 8 percent of student and exchange visitors from the five countries in 2016. §§2(b)–(h); see Dept. of State, Report of the Visa Office 2016, Table XVII Nonimmigrant Visas Issued Fiscal Year 2016 (Visa Report 2016 Table XVII). Visitors from Somalia are eligible for any type of nonimmigrant visa, subject to “additional scrutiny.” §2(h)(ii). If nonimmigrant visa applications under the Proclamation resemble those in 2016, 16 per- cent of visa applicants would be eligible for exemptions. See Visa Report 2016 Table XVII.

In practice, however, only 258 student visas were issued to applicants from Iran (189), Libya (29), Yemen (40), and Somalia (0) in the first three months of 2018. See Dept. of State, Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances by Nationality, Jan., Feb., and Mar. 2018. This is less than a quarter of the volume needed to be on track for 2016 student visa levels. And only 40 nonimmigrant visas have been issued to Somali nationals, a decrease of 65 percent from 2016.Ibid.; see Visa Report 2016 Table XVII. While this is but a piece of the picture, it does not provide grounds for confidence.

Anecdotal evidence further heightens these concerns. For example, one amicus identified a child with cerebral palsy in Yemen. The war had prevented her from receiv- ing her medication, she could no longer move or speak, and her doctors said she would not survive in Yemen. Her visa application was denied. Her family received a form with a check mark in the box unambiguously confirming that “‘a waiver will not be granted in your case.’” Letter from L. Blatt to S. Harris, Clerk of Court (May 1, 2018). But after the child’s case was highlighted in an amicusbrief before this Court, the family received an update from the consular officer who had initially denied the waiver. It turns out, according to the officer, that she had all along determined that the waiver criteria were met. But, the

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 7

BREYER, J., dissenting

officer explained, she could not relay that information at the time because the waiver required review from a super- visor, who had since approved it. The officer said that the family’s case was now in administrative processing and that she was attaching a “‘revised refusal letter indicating the approval of the waiver.’” Ibid. The new form did not actually approve the waiver (in fact, the form contains no box saying “granted”). But a different box was now checked, reading: “‘The consular officer is reviewing your eligibility for a waiver under the Proclamation. . . . This can be a lengthy process, and until the consular officer can make an individualized determination of [the relevant] factors, your visa application will remain refused under Section 212(f) [of the Proclamation].’” Ibid. One is left to wonder why this second box, indicating continuing review, had not been checked at the outset if in fact the child’s case had remained under consideration all along. Though this is but one incident and the child was admitted after considerable international attention in this case, it pro- vides yet more reason to believe that waivers are not being processed in an ordinary way.

Finally, in a pending case in the Eastern District of New York, a consular official has filed a sworn affidavit assert- ing that he and other officials do not, in fact, have discre- tion to grant waivers. According to the affidavit, consular officers “were not allowed to exercise that discretion” and “the waiver [process] is merely ‘window dressing.’” See Decl. of Christopher Richardson, Alharbi v. Miller, No. 1:18-cv-2435 (June 1, 2018), pp. 3–4. Another report similarly indicates that the U. S. Embassy in Djibouti, which processes visa applications for citizens of Yemen, received instructions to grant waivers “only in rare cases of imminent danger,” with one consular officer reportedly telling an applicant that “‘[e]ven for infants, we would need to see some evidence of a congenital heart defect or another medical issue of that degree of difficulty

8 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting

that…would likely lead to the child’s developmental harm or death.’” Center for Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, Window Dressing the Muslim Ban: Reports of Waivers and Mass Denials from Yemeni-American Families Stuck in Limbo 18 (2018).

Declarations, anecdotal evidence, facts, and numbers taken from amicus briefs are not judicial factfindings. The Government has not had an opportunity to respond, and a court has not had an opportunity to decide. But, given the importance of the decision in this case, the need for assur- ance that the Proclamation does not rest upon a “Muslim ban,” and the assistance in deciding the issue that an- swers to the “exemption and waiver” questions may pro- vide, I would send this case back to the District Court for further proceedings. And, I would leave the injunction in effect while the matter is litigated. Regardless, the Court’s decision today leaves the District Court free to explore these issues on remand.

If this Court must decide the question without this further litigation, I would, on balance, find the evidence of antireligious bias, including statements on a website taken down only after the President issued the two execu- tive orders preceding the Proclamation, along with the other statements also set forth in JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s opinion, a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside. And for these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S DISSENT:

The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neu trality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Mus lims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security con cerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presi dential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of dis crimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Estab lishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Procla mation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.

. . .

In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind. See, e.g.,Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 50 U. S. C. App. §4211 et seq.(setting forth remedies to individuals affected by the executive order at issue in Korematsu); Non-Detention Act of 1971, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a) (forbidding the imprisonment or detention by the United States of any citizen absent an Act of Congress). Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citingKorematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laud able and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discrimi natory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.

Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to ac count when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.

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

Quick Takes:

Yes, I think it’s as bad as it looks and sounds at first glance!

Anybody who thought that the Supremes would stand up for the Constitution against bias-based Executive overreaching should be disabused of that wishful thinking by this decision.
The majority showed little or no interest in holding Trump within Constitutional norms in the area of immigration.
Seems like the Supremes are inviting a bogus “Asylum Ban” as Trump’s next move, and signaling that they won’t do anything no matter how bad his abuses of the law, the Constitution, or international law might be.
Things are likely to get ugly really fast. And, the Supremes are saying that the last and only hope for getting our country and our Constitution back from the restrictionist regime is at the ballot box.
To make that result unlikely, however, they also turned their backs this week on clear racial and political gerrymandering, thus seeking to guarantee White minority control of all branches of Government for the foreseeable future.

PWS

06-26-18

I TAKE TO THE AIRWAVES TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, DUE PROCESS, RULE OF LAW, ASYLUM, KIDS, HUMANITY, IMMIGRATION JUDGES! – Weekend Clips

1. NPR WEEKEND EDITION WITH SCOTT SIMON, JUNE 23, 2018

Click here:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/23/622795409/a-former-immigration-judge-on-the-current-situation

2. WITH SOLEDAD O’BRIEN, JUNE 24, 2018

Click here:

http://matteroffact.tv/retired-immigration-judge-there-is-still-a-right-to-asylum-after-illegal-entry/

3. MSNBC, VELSHI & RUHLE WITH ALI VELSHI, JUNE 25, 2018

Click here:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fmr-immigration-judge-migrants-are-not-invaders/vp-AAz9ENo

PWS

06-26-18

TAL@ CNN: SESSIONS’S MOVES TO UNDERMINE DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURTS NOT ENOUGH FOR TRUMP, WHO WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH CONSTITUTION — Huckabee Sanders Spouts Nonsense! (What Else Is New?)

Trump fumes over immigration courts Sessions has focused on

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

President Donald Trump in recent days has fumed about the immigration courts that handle cases of people seeking entry into the US.

But Trump’s fixation on the courts and the judges who staff them flies in the face of what his attorney general has been trying to do to reshape the courts to align with the President’s vision, including hiring more immigration judges and restricting asylum laws.

The President tweeted that those stopped at the border should be simply told they can’t enter, rather than going through the system.

“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges or court cases, bring them back from where they came,” Trump tweeted on Saturday.

Press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Monday that “virtually all Americans” agree that drawn-out court proceedings don’t make sense for migrants who enter the country illegally. Trump, she said, “would certainly like to see more expedited removal.”

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” she said.

The immigration courts decide whether immigrants have a legal right to stay in the US or should be deported — and those cases include people arriving at the border as well people from the interior of the US, who may or may not have had legal status at some point.

But Trump’s suggestion has several problems, including the fact that there are fewer than 350 immigration judges nationwide and the Justice Department has budgeted for only 100 more.

In addition, the suggestion that the immigration courts could be done away with altogether would likely fly in the face of the Constitution and a host of domestic and international laws that bestow rights on everyone in the US and crossing the border, regardless of whether they are citizens.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/trump-sessions-immigration-judges-courts/index.html

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

There is no Due Process without an impartial decision maker (lots of doubt as to whether any Immigration Judge working for Jeff Sessions can be considered “impartial”).
Jeff Sessions has nothing to do with virtue. His disingenuous, racist, White Nationalist policies are the polar opposite of “virtue.”
As the Supreme Court has said, Due Process takes time — sometimes a lot, sometimes less.
Trump’s outrageous proposals violate our Constitution, our statutory law, and two international conventions to which we are party.
There is no crisis for the United States, except the unnecessary one that Trump and Sessions have created with their lawless behavior.
But, there is a crisis in the Northern Triangle for which we are at least partially responsible.
The stakes for the refugees are literally life or death — Trump and Sessions’s dehumanizing rhetoric is beyond disgusting.
Even those who fail to qualify for protection after full hearings likely face rape, torture, extortion, severe beatings, mutilation, or death upon return. We actually should be protecting more, not fewer, of them.

PWS

06-25-18

A-R-C-G- RULING SAVED THE LIFE OF THIS WOMAN, HER CHILDREN, & OTHERS LIKE THEM – SESSIONS PLANS “DEATH ROW” FOR FUTURE REFUGEE WOMEN & CHILDREN OF COLOR — Their Blood Will Be On Our Hands As A Nation If We Don’t Stop His White Nationalist Agenda!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-are-the-asylum-seekers-that-jeff-sessions-wants-to-turn-away_us_5b2b966ee4b0321a01ce5efb

Melissa Jeltsen reports for HuffPost:

BALTIMORE, Md. ― Aracely Martinez Yanez, 33, knows she’s one of the lucky ones. A deep scar that carves a line through her scalp, from crown to cheek, is proof of that fortune.

She got lucky when her abusive partner shot her point-blank in the head, and she survived.

She got lucky when she escaped her tiny village in Honduras. Local villagers blamed her for her partner’s death; he killed himself and their two young sons after he shot her.

She got lucky when she wasn’t harmed as she made the treacherous 2,000-mile journey to America.

And she got luckiest of all when she was granted asylum after she got here.

If she were to make her journey to America now, she would likely be turned away. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that immigration judges generally cannot consider domestic violence as grounds for asylum. Sessions overturned a precedent set during the Obama administration that allowed certain victims to seek asylum here if they were unable to get help in their home countries.

Domestic abuse of the kind experienced by Martinez Yanez is endemic in Central America. In Honduras, few services for victims exist, and perpetrators are almost never held criminally responsible. One woman is killed every 16 hours there, according to Honduras’ Center for Women’s Rights.

For many victims, the United States is their best shot at staying alive.

While the exact numbers are not available, immigration lawyers have estimated that the Trump administration’s decision could invalidate tens of thousands of pending asylum claims from women fleeing domestic violence. Advocates warn it will be used to turn women away at the border, even if they have credible asylum claims.

“This administration is trying to close the door to refugees,” said Archi Pyati, chief of policy at Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit organization that works with immigrant women and girls who have survived gender-based violence. They represented Martinez Yanez in her asylum case. Travel bans, increased detention and family separation are all being used as tools to deter individuals from coming here, Pyati said.

Still, that will not stop women from coming. Because there are thousands of women just like Martinez Yanez, and their stories are just as harrowing.

CHERYL DIAZ MEYER FOR HUFFPOST

Aracely Martinez Yanez is pictured with her three daughters: Alyson, 4, Emely, 11 and Gabriela, 7. She holds her only photograph of her murdered sons: Daniel, 4, and Juancito, 6.

A Violent Start

Martinez Yanez grew up in a tiny village in Honduras with her parents and seven siblings. Her family made a living by selling homemade horchata, a sweet drink made from milky rice, and jugo de marañon, cashew juice. They also sold fresh tortillas out of their house. Her childhood was simple and happy.

But after she turned 15, a man in her village named Sorto became obsessed with her. At her cousin’s wedding, he tried to dance with her. She pushed him off: He was 15 years her senior, and gave her the creeps. A few days later, Martinez Yanez said, he waited outside her house with a gun and kidnapped her. He took her to a mountain and raped her repeatedly.

“I wanted to die,” she told HuffPost through an interpreter at her home in Baltimore on Tuesday. “I felt dirty. He said that I was his woman, and that I would not belong to anyone else.” As she told her story, she rubbed her legs up and down, physically uncomfortable as she recalled the terrible things that had happened to her.

Over the next six years, she said, Sorto went on to rape and beat her whenever he pleased. In the eyes of the village, she was his woman, just like he said. She got pregnant immediately, giving birth to her first son, Juancito, at 16, and her second son, Daniel, at 18. Sorto would come and go from the village, as he had a wife and children in El Salvador. But when he wasn’t there, she said she was watched by his family.

As for help, there were no police in her village, she said. She had seen what happened to other women who traveled to the closest city to report abuse: It made things worse. The police did nothing, and the abuser would inevitably find out.

“I felt like I was worthless, like I had no value,” she said.

A few years after her sons were born, she became friends with a local barber who cut her children’s hair. He was sweet and respectful, nothing like Sorto, she said. They began a secret relationship. Sorto had been gone from the village for a few years, and Martinez Yanez hoped she was free of him. Then she got pregnant. Scared that Sorto would find out, she fled to San Pedro Sula, a city in the north of the country. She didn’t tell anyone where she had gone.

But Sorto found her anyway. He called her on the phone and told her if she did not come back to the village within the next 24 hours, he would kill her family, she said. Martinez Yanez got on the next bus back.

A few days after she returned, she said, Sorto told her that he was taking her and their two boys to the river. He brought a hunting rifle with him. The family walked through the mountainside. Martinez Yanez recalled handing her children some sticks to play with, and crouching on the ground with them. Then she felt the rifle pressing into her head. The rest is a blank.

Sorto shot her in the back of the head, and killed her two sons, before shooting himself. Juancito was 6, Daniel was 4. Somehow, Martinez Yanez, five months pregnant, survived. She was hospitalized for months and had to relearn to walk and talk. She is still deaf in one ear, and has numbness down one side of her body.

When she returned home to the village, she said, people threw rocks at her and called her names. Someone fired a gun into her house. Someone else tried to run her over with a bicycle. The community blamed her for the killings because she had tried to leave Sorto, she explained. His family wanted to avenge his death.

“The whole village was against me,” she said. “Children, adults. I couldn’t go anywhere by myself.”

A few months later she gave birth to a girl, Emely, but she was overwhelmed with stress. On top of grieving the death of her two sons, learning to live with a traumatic brain injury, and caring for her newborn, she was constantly worried about being killed by people in her village.

It was too much. She eventually fled to Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, but Sorto’s family found her there too, she said. In a last-ditch effort to save Martinez Yanez’s life, her family paid over $7,000, an enormous sum for the family, to a coyote, a person who helps smuggle people across the border to the U.S. Emely, who was now 2, had to stay behind. They couldn’t afford to send her, too.

Martinez Yanez made the heartbreaking decision to go alone.

The Journey To Freedom

She left in the middle of the night, traveling with a group of four or five people. They were transported in a van for part of the trip, and then in taxis.

There was very little to eat or drink, she said, and she barely slept. Her stomach was upset and she suffered from debilitating headaches. In Mexico, she almost turned back.

“I missed my parents and my daughter so much,” she said. “But the threats and the conditions that I knew were waiting for me in my village gave me the motivation to continue to the U.S. to be safe.”

It took them two weeks to get to the U.S. border. Then they waited two days before attempting to cross, she said. She was terrified that she would be caught by immigration officials and sent back. She crossed the border illegally in February 2009, and went to her uncle’s house in Houston, Texas, before traveling on to Annapolis, Maryland, where her brother lived.

Women like Aracely are saving their own lives.Kristen Strain, a lawyer who worked on Martinez Yanez’s asylum case.

Martinez Yanez didn’t know that she could apply for asylum as a domestic violence victim until a few years later, when she sought medical care for her head injury in Maryland. There, she was referred to Tahirih Justice Center.

Kristen Strain, an attorney who worked on her case, wrote the legal brief arguing that Martinez Yanez should be granted asylum.

Generally, applicants must show that the persecution they have suffered is on account of one of five grounds: race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Strain successfully argued that being a female victim of severe gender-based violence in Honduras counted as a particular social group for purposes of obtaining asylum.

“There simply aren’t laws in place that protect women like Aracely,” she said. “They have no recourse. It is accepted in their communities that women can be treated like men’s property.”

She said it took over a year to gather all the evidence for Martinez Yanez’s claim, which included a neurological evaluation, medical documents, news stories from Honduran papers about the shooting, dozens of interviews, and statements from friends and family in Honduras to corroborate her story.

“It is not as if it’s easy,” Strain said. “In addition to having to physically get here, which is harrowing and dangerous, women have to navigate a complex legal system that is difficult to understand, especially when they don’t speak the language. It’s hard for them to even know what their rights are, let alone find an attorney who can advocate for them.”

“Women like Aracely are saving their own lives,” she went on.

Martinez Yanez was granted asylum in 2013. Her daughter, Emely, was allowed to join her in 2014. While they talked on the phone regularly, the mother and daughter had not seen each other for five years.

CHERYL DIAZ MEYER FOR HUFFPOST

Martinez Yanez watches her daughters play outside the family’s Baltimore apartment.

A New Life

In her Baltimore home, more than 3,000 miles from the tiny village in Honduras where she was raised, Martinez Yanez likes to be surrounded by photos. They remind her of those she had to leave behind.

There’s one of her sister graduating college. Another of her parents beaming happily.

And then, hanging in the entrance to the kitchen, is a photograph of her with her two deceased sons. It is the only picture she owns of them. She brought it with her when she fled Honduras. When she spoke to HuffPost about her sons, she cried. She still doesn’t understand why they were killed.

Since she’s been in the U.S., Martinez Yanez has expanded her family. Emely, who is 11, now has two sisters: Gabriela, 7, and Alyson, 4.

“I’m very fortunate to be able to have my daughters with me,” she said. “I can’t ask for anything better to happen. I am so happy with my life.”

Martinez Yanez still struggles with the repercussions of being shot in the head. She is forgetful and can get confused easily. She said she has to put every appointment she has in her phone with an alarm, otherwise she’ll miss it.

She said she was grateful that she was granted asylum, and heartbroken for other women who may not have the same opportunity she did.

“I just feel so sad that other women in my situation, or even in worse situations than mine will not be allowed in the country anymore,” she said. “Here, I don’t have to hide or run away from anyone.”

So, without the interference of the DOJ politicos, here was an actual working system that helped get deserving cases granted and off the docket, conserved judicial resources, saved time, saved lives, and complied completely with Due Process. In other words, a smashing Immigration Court and U.S. system of justice “success story” by any rational measure!

That has all been disgracefully dismantled by Sessions. Now, following his perversion of the law in Matter of A-B-, He’s encouraging DHS and Immigration Judges to deny such cases without even hearing the testimony (even though every one of these individuals easily should qualify for the lesser relief of protection under the Convention Against Torture). That’s almost certain to result in appeals, prolonged litigation in the Courts of Appeals, and ultimately return of most cases to the Immigration Courts for full hearings and fair consideration.

At some point, not only is A-R-C-G- likely to be reinstated, but it is likely to be expanded to what is really the fundamental basis for these claims — gender as a qualifying “Particular Social Group.” It’s undeniably immutable/fundamental, particularized, socially distinct and clearly the basis for much of the persecution in today’s world!

In the meantime, however, those who don’t have the luxury of great pro bono representation, lack an attentive Circuit Court of Appeals, or who can’t get through the “credible fear interview” as it has now been “rigged for denial” by Sessions will likely be unlawfully returned to their home countries to suffer abuse, torture, and a lifetime of torment or death, along with those cute little kids in the pictures we’re seeing.

The White Nationalist, neo-Nazi regime of Trump, Sessions, and their enablers will be one of the most horrible and disgusting periods in our history. History will neither forget nor treat kindly those who failed to stand up to the racists and child abusers running and ruining our Government, and destroying many innocent lives in the process.

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never!

PWS

06-25-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: SOME IMMIGRATION JUDGES START PARTICIPATING IN THE SESSIONS/DHS ALL-OUT ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS BY SUBJECTING ASYLUM APPLICANTS TO AN UNAUTHORIZED “SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCESS” TO DENY ASYLUM WITHOUT A HEARING – The Likely Result Of Yet Another Administration “Haste Makes Waste” Initiative – Massive Denials Of Due Process, Unlawful Removals, Lost Lives, Massive Remands From The “Real” Courts, Further Loss Of Credibility For The Immigration Courts, More Unnecessary Backlogs, Waste Of Taxpayer Funds – Hey, What’s Not To Like About Another Jeff Sessions Bogus White Nationalist Scheme?

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/24/are-summary-denials-coming-to-immigration-court

Jun 24 Are Summary Denials Coming to Immigration Court?

An attorney recently reported the following: at a Master Calendar hearing, an immigration judge advised that if on the Individual Hearing date, both the court and the ICE attorney do not believe the respondent is prima facie eligible for asylum based on the written submissions, the judge will deny asylum summarily without hearing testimony. The judge stated that other immigration judges around the country were already entering such summary judgments, in light of recent decisions of the Attorney General.

I have been telling reporters lately that no one decision or policy of the AG, the EOIR Director, or the BIA should be viewed in isolation. Rather, all are pieces in a puzzle. Back in March, in a very unusual decision, Jeff Sessions certified to himself a four-year-old BIA precedent decision while it was administratively closed (and therefore off-calendar) at the immigration judge level, and then vacated the decision for the most convoluted of reasons. What jumped out at me was the fact that the decision, Matter of E-F-H-L-, had held that all asylum applicants had the right to a full hearing on their application without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. It was pretty clear that Sessions wanted this requirement eliminated.

Let’s look at the timeline of recent developments. On January 4 of this year, Sessions certified to himself the case of Matter of Castro-Tum, in which he asked whether immigration judges and the BIA should continue to have the right to administratively close cases, a useful and common docket management tool. On January 19, the BIA published its decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, in which it required asylum applicants to clearly delineate their claimed particular social group before the immigration judge (an extremely complicated task beyond the ability of most unrepresented applicants), and stated that the BIA will not consider reformulations of the social group on appeal. The decision was written by Board Member Garry Malphrus, a hard-line Republican who was a participant in the “Brooks Brother Riot” that disrupted the Florida ballot recount following the 2000 Presidential election.

On March 5, Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-. Two days later, on March 7, Sessions certified to himself an immigration judge’s decision in Matter of A-B-, engaging in procedural irregularity in taking the case from the BIA before it could rule on the matter, and then completely transforming the issues presented in the case, suddenly challenging whether anyone fearing private criminal actors could qualify for asylum.

On March 22, Sessions certified to himself Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., to determine under what circumstances immigration judges may grant continuances to respondents in removal proceedings. Although this decision is still pending, immigration judges are already having to defend their decisions to grant continuances to their supervisors at the instigation of the EOIR Director’s Office, which is tracking all IJ continuances.

On March 30, EOIR issued a memo stating that immigration judges would be subjected to performance metrics, or quotas, requiring them to complete 700 cases per year, 95 percent at the first scheduled individual hearing, and further requiring that no more than 15 percent of their decisions be remanded. On May 17, Sessions decided Castro-Tum in the negative, stripping judges of the ability to manage their own dockets by administratively closing worthy cases.

On May 31, Castro-Tum’s case was on the Master Calendar of Immigration Judge Steven Morley. Instead of ordering Castro-Tum deported in absentia that day, the judge continued the proceedings to allow an interested attorney to brief him on the issue of whether Castro-Tum received proper notice of the hearing. Soon thereafter, the case was removed from Judge Morley’s docket and reassigned to a management-level immigration judge who is far less likely to exercise such judicial independence.

On June 11, Sessions decided Matter of A-B-, vacating the BIA’s 2014 decision recognizing the ability of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum as members of a particular social group. In that decision, Sessions included headnote 4: “If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.” The case was intentionally issued on the first day of the Immigration Judges training conference, at which the need to complete more cases in less time was a repeatedly emphasized.

So in summary, within the past few months, the immigration judges have been warned that their livelihood will depend on their completing large numbers of cases, without the ability to grant continuances or administratively close cases. They have had the need to hold a full asylum hearing stripped away, while at the same time, having pointed out to them several ways to quickly dispose of an asylum claim that until weeks ago, would have been clearly grantable under settled case law.

So where does all this leave the individual judges? There has been much discussion lately of EOIR’s improper politicized hirings of immigration judges. I feel that the above developments have created something of a Rorschach test for determining an immigration judge’s ideology.

The judges that conclude from the above the best practice is to summarily deny asylum without testimony are exactly the type of judges the present administration wants on the bench. They can find a “fatal flaw” in the claim – either in the formulation (or lack thereof) of the particular social group, or in the lack of preliminary documentation as to the persecutor’s motive, the government’s inability to protect, or the unreasonableness of internal relocation, and simply deny the right to a hearing. It should be noted that these issues are often resolved by the detailed testimony offered at a full merits hearing, which is the purpose of holding such hearings in the first place.

On the other hand, more thoughtful, liberal judges will find that in light of the above developments, they must afford more time for asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang threats, or other claims involving non-governmental actors. They will conference these cases, and hear detailed testimony from the respondent, country experts, and other witnesses on the particular points raised by Sessions in Matter of A-B-. They may consider alternative theories of these cases based on political opinion or religion. They are likely to take the time to craft thoughtful, detailed decisions. And in doing so, they will find it extremely difficult to meet the completion quotas set out by the agency with Sessions’ blessing. They may also have their decisions remanded by the conservative BIA, whose leadership is particularly fearful of angering its superiors in light of the 2003 purge of liberal BIA members by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The removal of Castro-Tum’s case from the docket of Judge Morley is clearly a warning that the agency does not wish for judges to behave as independent and impartial adjudicators, but rather to act in lockstep with the agency’s enforcement agenda.

There is another very significant issue: most asylum claims also apply for protection under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, “CAT” relief is mandatory, and as it does not require a nexus to a protected ground, it is unaffected by the AG’s holding in A-B-. So won’t those judges pondering summary dismissal still have to hold full hearings on CAT protection? It would seem that a refusal to hold a full CAT hearing would result in a remand, if not from the BIA, than at the circuit court level.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Four Easy, Low Budget, Steps To A Better, Fairer, & More Efficient U.S. Immigration Court System:

Remove Jeff Sessions and all other politicos from control.
Restore Immigration Judges’ authority to “administratively close” cases when necessary to get them off the docket so that relief can be pursued outside the Immigration Court system.
Give Immigration Judges authority to set and control their own dockets, working with Court Administrators and attorneys from both sides (rather than having DHS enforcement policies essentially “drive the docket” as is now the case) to:
- Schedule cases in a manner that insures fair and reasonable access to pro bono counsel for everyone prior to the first Master Calendar;
- Schedule cases so that pleadings can be taken and applications filed at the first Master Calendar (or the first Master Calendar after representation is obtained);
- Schedule Individual Hearings in a manner that will maximize the chances of “completion at the first Individual Hearing” while minimizing “resets” of Individual Hearing cases.
Establish a Merit Selection hiring system for Immigration Judges overseen by the U.S. Circuit Court in the jurisdiction where that Immigration Judge would sit, or in the case of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

No, it wouldn’t overnight eliminate the backlog (which has grown up over many years of horrible mismanagement by the DOJ under Administrations of both parties). But, it certainly would give the Immigration Courts a much better chance of reducing the backlog in a fair manner over time. Just that, as opposed to the Trump Administration’s “maximize unfairness, minimize Due Process, maximize backlogs, shift blame, waste money and resources” policies would be a huge improvement at no additional costs over what it now takes to run a system “designed, built, and operated to fail.”

PWS

06-25-48

About Attorney Yañez

Related posts:

Anyone convicted of entering the US illegally would become ineligible for asylum

Victims of domestic or gang violence would be all but banned from asylum

Central Americans would be penalized for not seeking asylum in Mexico

Tightening the screws on the entire asylum process

Related posts:

“The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.” And, with very good reason!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

JUSTICE NEWS

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

1. NPR WEEKEND EDITION WITH SCOTT SIMON, JUNE 23, 2018

2. WITH SOLEDAD O’BRIEN, JUNE 24, 2018

3. MSNBC, VELSHI & RUHLE WITH ALI VELSHI, JUNE 25, 2018

Related posts:

Related posts:

A Violent Start

The Journey To Freedom

A New Life

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never!

Related posts:

Jun 24 Are Summary Denials Coming to Immigration Court?

Four Easy, Low Budget, Steps To A Better, Fairer, & More Efficient U.S. Immigration Court System:

Related posts: