SCOFFLAW KAKSITOCRACY: Trump Politicos Were Advised That “Zero Tolerance” & Family Separation Likely Illegal & Unconstitutional – They Went Ahead Anyway!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/10/25/feature/civil-servants-said-separating-families-was-illegal-the-administration-ignored-us/

Scott Shuchart writes in the Washington Post:

The meeting was way overdue, and it wasn’t going well.

It was May 21. The Department of Homeland Security, where I worked as a senior adviser in the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, had been making a show of prosecuting undocumented immigrant parents for weeks, cleaving them from their children without paying much attention to where the family members went or setting up any procedure for tracking and reuniting them later.

My office had played a central role, for years, in Homeland Security’s treatment of families and children. But when a cadre of Trump administration political appointees put the family separation plan into motion, neither they nor the career staff in the immigration enforcement agencies under DHS consulted with the civil servants in my office. When media reports throughout April and May led us to understand what was going on, we had urgent questions: What exactly was the policy? What had DHS’s front-line agents in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) been told to do? How had the department assessed the risk that litigation would interfere with the policy? How was this justified in light of our treaty obligations toward refugees? And why was the department pushing out transparently misleading — or simply false — statistics to justify these steps? We were obliged, under the law that created our office, to register our objections that the administration was knowingly violating people’s rights.

But the top political appointee at the May meeting — John Mitnick, the experienced, Senate-confirmed general counsel — and his deputy seemed confused that the civil rights office would see any cause for concern. The administration was claiming in public that a policy of prosecuting all border crossers didn’t target families as such, so it could not present any legal issues. And if there were any issues, they hadn’t been raised ahead of time.

That was false. The next day, I called around to colleagues who confirmed that there had been multiple interagency phone calls and documents, involving the State and Justice departments as well as DHS, making clear that lawyers throughout the government worried that deliberately separating families could violate migrants’ rights under humanitarian treaties or U.S. law. But the political appointees simply didn’t listen. And a few weeks later, I came across an April 24 memo — signed by the very officials I had met with a month later — acknowledging, but dismissing, the legal risks. Even worse, it encouraged indicting immigrants specifically because doing so would justify separating families, arguing that the government’s “legal position” on “separating adults and children through the immigration process . . . is likely strongest [when] separation occurs in connection with a referral of an adult family member for criminal prosecution.”

Mitnick, through a DHS spokeswoman contacted by The Washington Post, declined to comment for this story. That spokeswoman, Katie Waldman, said: “The Department of Homeland Security does not disclose or comment on privileged legal advice provided by our attorneys to the Secretary or other officials, and therefore, unfortunately, we are not in a position to refute false narratives put forward by a former employee. We note, however, that in order to address the crisis at the border, the Trump Administration made a decision to enforce long-standing U.S. law and refer for prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) adults who crossed into the United States illegally. As we have repeatedly stated, the policy was to enforce the law, not to separate families.”

She also sent a statement from Cameron Quinn, the Trump appointee who runs the office I worked in: “I participated in the meeting in question. It was a brief, general discussion, and Mr. Mitnick made it clear that he desired to work collegially with our office.”

By law, our job in that office was to ensure that “the civil rights and civil liberties of persons are not diminished” by DHS’s programs. When it became clear that the department would be tearing families apart and — thanks to incompetence, dishonesty and sheer disinterest — had no reasonable plan to put them back together, I realized I could not do that. A few weeks after that meeting, I quit my job and left public service, carrying a profound sense of failure.

Children and parents from Central America, part of a caravan trying to reach the United States, wait to apply for asylum in Mexico at a checkpoint in Ciudad Hidalgo on Oct. 20. (Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters)

The government formally announced the family separation policy in April. The point was clear, as several officials later admitted: By threatening to separate their children, the administration hoped to deter Central American asylum seekers from coming here in search of humanitarian protection. Then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly had suggested the practice during a CNN interview in March 2017, and it had been gaining support in the White House since then.

Many senior civil servants at DHS believed that the policy violated the civil and human rights of migrants. (Many of them, like me, were trained and licensed attorneys, though our role was to give policy advice, not legal advice.) Crossing the border to surrender immediately to authorities and claim asylum is protected by the United Nations refugee protocol signed by the United States. Even for families outside that protection, the substantive due process principle in the Constitution suggests that it is illegitimate to threaten to harm or abscond with someone’s children to deter the commission of a misdemeanor. (First-time unlawful entry is the lowest level of federal crime.)

During past surges in border crossings, such as in 2005, 2006 and 2007 under George W. Bush and 2014 under Barack Obama, the civil rights office was central to planning humane and effective protections for migrants as they were arrested, detained, screened and, if they passed initial “credible fear” screenings, placed into immigration court proceedings. But Trump appointees such as White House adviser Stephen Miller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director L. Francis Cissna — along with many deputies, assistants and enablers inside ICE and CBP who dreamed up the “zero tolerance” policy — didn’t consult career experts like me: not when it was being considered last year, not when it was unveiled and not for the critical weeks afterward, even as we begged to share our legal and policy analyses.

My job was to ensure that the government did not violate clearly established individual rights, and the Trump administration was pushing a policy whose principal aim was to do just that. My colleagues and I identified a number of constitutional provisions and related case law holding that parents had rights to due process that could limit the ability of the government to separate them from their children for civil immigration violations. That meant that once parents served their typically short criminal sentences for crossing the border illegally, they should have been reunited with their children. Our research also suggested that threatening to detain children separately, and threatening civil detention generally to deter future conduct, was probably unconstitutional.

In our capacity as a gateway for public complaints about DHS, my office was analyzing hundreds of incidents of family separation, including dozens sent over by career staff at the Department of Health and Human Services, which was taking custody of children who had been separated from their parents. We noticed early that CBP and ICE weren’t providing HHS with proper records to allow families to be reunited or pursue their immigration cases jointly. We recommended that officials tell parents promptly and clearly where their children were going, how they could be reached and how family members could get them out of government custody while the parents were detained. Perhaps most urgently, we tried to ensure that children with serious disabilities were not thrown into a system unprepared to care for them. As allegations emerged of chaotic separations and deliberate lies — parents being told that their children were headed to a shower when they were instead placed in another agency’s custody — we started drafting guidelines and training for the Border Patrol agents on the ground. Above all, we tried to ring the alarm that the legal, strategic and human dimensions of the policy hadn’t been thought through, needed fast improvement and posed a massive liability for the government.

My colleagues and I learned while reviewing internal DHS documents through April and May that CBP had, the previous fall, undertaken a pilot project of prosecuting parents with small children who crossed the border illegally near El Paso, leading to a wave of separated families. But when we asked the acting second-ranking CBP official about it, he denied having any information.

That was also false. The formal memo to Nielsen from CBP, ICE and USCIS recommending the family separation policy had justified it on the basis of this same El Paso project, including misleading statistics that had already been debunked by Vox when DHS tried to pass them off to reporters.

Every attempt to raise civil rights concerns led nowhere: a lengthy staff memo to my boss, the top civil rights official; efforts to explain in meetings the toll on our staff from investigating complaints of children and parents who had been separated, without any communication to get back together; multiple efforts to schedule, and reschedule, a briefing that James McCament, the head of the DHS Office of Policy, had promised near the start of the crisis but never convened. Civil servants advanced recommendations for mitigating the worst of the harm; we suggested improving record-keeping, giving separated parents and children better information, and permitting more regular phone calls among families.

After hundreds of complaints filed by migrant children, parents and advocates on their behalf, my office finally managed to arrange a meeting in June with CBP managers to understand how they were separating families and to present ideas about how to do it in a more humane way, if they insisted on doing it. My notes from the meeting record my boiling frustration with the absurd answers we received. Border Patrol agents dismissed our offer to train them on how to speak to children after ripping them from their families. “No,” we were told, “many of our agents are parents themselves. They are very empathetic to the child’s needs and will know what to do.” Had officials in Washington directed agents to record family members’ names and information, so they could later be reunited? “I think we sent an email.” Can we see the email so we know what agents were directed to do? “Um, I’d have to find it.” (The official never did.) Is there a written policy on how to determine whether children have suffered trauma or have some other condition that would mean separating them from their parents would do too much harm? “No, we have no need for written policy. It’s simply ingrained in law enforcement culture.”

The culture ingrained at CBP, though, is one where the Border Patrol’s union opened its podcast (“The Green Line”) with the oath of the Night’s Watch from “Game of Thrones” — the pledge of a band of warrior monks to protect a magical kingdom from an army of ice zombies. If federal law enforcement agents see Central American children as the moral equivalent of the frozen undead, we can’t expect them to understand intuitively how to detain and process them humanely without training, guidance and leadership. That’s why my colleagues and I were pushing for record-keeping, communication and other policies that Trump appointees ignored. (Representatives of the Border Patrol union did not immediately return requests for comment from The Post.)

A U.S. Border Patrol agent acknowledges a family that had illegally crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico in Fronton, Tex., on Oct. 18. (Adrees Latif/Reuters)

It would be easy to see all this as part of the federal sausage-making, the usual intentional delays and risk-managing memos that bureaucrats deploy. But this level of dishonesty and subterfuge was unusual. This month, the DHS inspector general released a report making clear that the incompetence in managing family separation was pervasive, from a lack of planning, to “information provided to alien parents [that] resulted in some parents not understanding that their children would be separated from them,” to false public claims of having a “central database” of parents and children.

The Department of Homeland Security is filled with excellent, dedicated public servants. But it also has enormous authority and the power to enforce thousands of laws well or badly. Its leaders have a responsibility to give their people orders that they can competently and ethically execute, and the tools and guidance to do so. The family separation crisis represented a new frontier in weaponizing DHS’s authority, and its borderline competence, to disastrous effect. Front-line officers weren’t given enough guidance, and their managers in the field didn’t do enough to help them figure it out. Only the administration’s naivete in failing to predict the bipartisan public outrage kept it from being worse.

But most culpable were the high-level appointees, unwilling to take ownership of what they’d decided to do; lying to their staffs in the expectation that nobody really cared what happened to poor Central American kids; cynical about the notion that most of us who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution actually mean it. I cast about for more to do, but within a month of that June meeting, I realized there was no way to keep my oath and my job.

I quit.

Outlook • Perspective

Scott Shuchart was a senior adviser at the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from 2010 to 2018. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Follow @scottshuchart

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

Seems like these are precisely the type of knowingly lawless, extra-legal actions that personal liability under the “Bivens doctrine” is supposed to discourage and prevent. It remains to be seen whether the Federal Courts, particularly the Supremes, will have the backbone to hold scofflaw Government officials like Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, & co. personally accountable for their intentional perversions of the rule of law. Recently, the Supremes have indicated that a majority would like to narrowly limit or even abolish Bivens liability. Just when the country needs it most to rein in an out of control Administration!

PWS

10-29-18

LAUREN MARKHAM @ POLITICO: Trump’s Policies Won’t Stop Human Migration — It’s Driven By Dynamics He Neither Understands Nor Controls!

Someone using POLITICO for iPad wants to share this article with you:

This Is What It’s Like to Be a Migrant in the Age of Trump

Lauren Markham

TAPACHULA, MEXICO-Rosa Gonzalez arrived in the shelter here after leaving her native El Salvador suddenly in late summer, fleeing her small town with her older brother and a few possessions, hoping to avoid becoming yet another murder statistic at the hand…

READ ON POLITICO.COM

Download the POLITICO app for your iPhone, iPad, or Android device

Follow POLITICO on Twitter: @POLITICO

Disclaimer: Please note that POLITICO is not responsible for the content within this email. POLITICO cannot verify the sender of this email.

KEY EXCERPT:

To hear these men and women talk, it’s clear that, in a way, Trump’s policies are being received just as he expects them to be: Migrants seem to be more apprehensive about the journey than ever. But that doesn’t mean they’re staying home. Some, like Rosa, are choosing to leave their kids home and migrating without them. Some are moving through more dangerous routes if they do want to continue on to the United States—discarding the long-standing practice of turning themselves in to Border Patrol and applying for asylum. And in some cases, they are avoiding the United States: They’re deciding to settle in other countries, like Mexico or even Canada.

PWS

10-27-18

LA TIMES TAKES STAND AGAINST INHUMANE, UNNECESSARY, AND EXPENSIVE CIVIL IMMIGRATION DETENTION — “A National Embarrassment”

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-detention-immigrants-ice-20181027-story.html

The United States has the dubious honor of maintaining the world’s largest immigration detention system. Other countries may house more refugees and temporarily displaced persons, but we lock up the most people whose right to stay in the country is in dispute. Tens of thousands of people a day are held until they’re deported or granted permission to stay by an immigration judge (or at least released on bond or into a sponsor’s custody pending a further hearing).

It is a shameful aspect of U.S. immigration enforcement that the government denies liberty to so many people who have neither been accused nor convicted of a crime. To be sure, every nation has a right to control its borders and determine who gets to come in, for what reasons, and through what legal mechanism. We don’t believe that the U.S. should maintain open borders, but the government’s historic reliance on detention as a tool for dealing with people accused of arriving or staying here illegally is needlessly expensive, grossly inhumane and unjust to people exercising their legal right to seek asylum

While the current administration has embraced and expanded the practice, this is not a creation of President Trump. Such detentions date to the Immigration Act of 1882, and current detention policies are rooted in the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act. More recently, Cuban and Haitian migrants arriving by boat in the 1970s and ’80s were placed in detention centers, in part to deter their countrymen from similarly setting off to sea on rickety boats. Congress eventually mandated detention for migrants convicted of certain crimes that made them ineligible for admission.

ICE spends nearly $3 billion a year on immigration detention.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 greatly expanded the immigration detention system through contracts with local jails and state and privately run prisons. In fact, most of the 39,000 people incarcerated on any given day in the U.S. for immigration reasons — more than 350,000 pass through the system each year — are held in prison-like conditions in more than 200 locations around the country.

Some local governments have expanded their jails so they can house, for a daily fee, migrants that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants detained. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has granted $360 million in low-interest loans since 1996 to help rural communities build jails often larger than they need, so local officials can use detainees and the federal fee payments they bring to cover operating expenses, according to a recent report by the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice.

ICE spends nearly $3 billion a year on immigration detention, according to the Government Accountability Office. About two-thirds of that goes to private prison corporations to operate detention centers and to local jails to reimburse them for housing detainees. Through those efforts the government has expanded an incarceration industry costing an exorbitant amount of tax dollars to deny freedom of movement of people who, in the vast majority of cases, pose no threat to us.

And notably, at least 77% of migrants facing deportation proceedings show up for their hearings, according to reports. Rates are highest among those who find legal help or receive support from community groups, which suggests there are better methods for handling thisthan detention.

There may, of course, be valid reasons for detaining some migrants, such as newly arrived asylum-seekers whose identities have yet to be verified, people facing imminent court-ordered deportation who the government has reason to fear might disappear, or violent felons who pose a realistic threat to public safety.

One of the largest contributors to no-shows is the government’s failure to keep current contact information for migrants during proceedings that can stretch out for years. One approach would be to match migrants to community service groups or sponsors to better keep track of the individuals and ensure they appear for court hearings; sadly, Trump killedan experimental Obama program that did just that.

This administration has chosen instead to double down on detention, and now it reportedly is considering reviving a version of the vile family separations. If family separation and detention worked as a deterrent, the president wouldn’t be tweeting so furiously these days about the current caravan of Central American migrants moving northward through Mexico. Detention-as-deterrence is not only an inhumane approach, it’s a failed one.

The government can neither detain nor deport its way out of this problem. It must find a better way. The fact that it has failed to do so for so long, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House, is an embarrassment.

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

Doubling down on the worst, most ineffective, wasteful, and expensive policies. That’s the mantra of the Trump Administration on immigration. What if our Government spent the same amount of time, money, personnel, and effort on solving problems, rather than intentionally and cynically aggravating them?

PWS

10-27-18

TRUMP’S WRONG-HEADED IMMIGRATION & CLIMATE POLICIES LIKELY TO CREATE “PERFECT STORM” THAT WILL HAUNT W. HEMISPHERE FOR GENERATIONS! — “You can only shut the border if you’re willing to kill people.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-migrant-caravan-climate-change_us_

Alexander C. Kaufman reports for HuffPost:

The Trump administration is preparing to dispatch 800 troops and has threatened to shut down all entry across the U.S.-Mexico border as a caravan of thousands of Central American migrants travels northward seeking asylum.

It’s a textbook show of Trumpian drama, a fiery response intended to bolster the Republican case for stronger border protections ahead of next month’s election and following days of conspiracy-mongering and wall-to-wall Fox News coverage.

But within the thunderous saber-rattling over would-be asylum seekers is the overtone of President Donald Trump’s apparent long-term policy to deal with the anticipated social and political upheaval of rapidly worsening climate change.

Now ― with the White House poised to gut the federal government’s only two major rules to reduce planet-warming emissions, and Trump threatening to cut aid to drought- and violence-afflicted Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador ― critics say the administration’s strategy to deal with climate change is taking shape, frustrating national security experts who say hunkering down and militarizing borders will do little to mitigate global warming’s threats.

“A quasi-fascist policy of fear-mongering about immigration and corresponding militarization of the border is clearly the major thrust of Trump’s response to the mounting impacts of climate chaos,” said Ashley Dawson, author of Extreme Cities: The Peril and Promise of Urban Life in the Age of Climate Change.

Despite the repeated dismissals of climate science by the president and many of his top advisers, the Trump administration officially forecasts that the planet is expected to warm by 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century ― a projection buried in a 500-page environmental impact statement in August.

That’s roughly double the temperature scientists say will cause cataclysmic drought, storms and sea level rise, and roughly four times the warming the planet has already experienced since the pre-industrial era. Under those conditions, more than 1 billion people globally could be forced to flee their homes by 2050, and 2 billion by 2100. Tropical regions ― where many of the roughly 20,000 to 40,000 migrants who crossed the U.S. southern border each month in the past year came from ― are expected to be hit the hardest.

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for comment Friday.

Migration from the trio of Central American nations surged 25 percent between 2007 and 2015 following the worst drought in 30 years, which left more than 3 million people hungry.

“The main driver is, yes, desperation,” María Mendez Libby, the country director of Oxfam Guatemala, told Earther this week. “They have seen it’s not a seasonal desperation. It’s an ongoing continuous desperation for their entire life.”

It’s difficult to draw a direct line between climate change and a migrant’s decision to leave home, and neither the United Nations nor nearly any other major countries currently offer legal avenues for asylum seekers fleeing the effects of global warming. New Zealand became the first country late last year to create a special status for climate refugees with 100 annual visas as low-lying island nations in its corner of the Pacific face existential threat of sea-level rise. On the opposite side of the ocean, a hotter climate is expected to parch once fertile lands. In an email, Jennifer Francis, a Rutgers University climate researcher, said “it’s likely that increasing drought in Central America is making it more difficult for farmers there to make a living.”

Lina Pohl, El Salvador’s environment and natural resources minister, made a similar declaration at a press conference in Panama this week: “The next migrants are going to be climate migrants.”

To some, the decision to send troops to the border demonstrates the president’s affinity for a “general approach of throwing the military at the problem.”

“The President had willing partners in Congress and could have worked on immigration, border security, DREAMers and all that,” Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, said in an email. “But he didn’t take advantage of that opportunity. Having missed the chance to seek actual reforms, we now get a militaristic and hasty response to a predictable stress.”

Such a response will do little to quell the long-term national security concerns posed by climate change, said Francesco Femia, president of the Center for Climate and Security.

“Climate change [is] contributing to make nations unstable, both nations in our neighborhood and others abroad,” said Femia, whose Washington-based policy institute includes former top national security advisers. “The best way, from a security perspective, is to bolster the resilience of those countries so you reduce the likelihood of instability, reduce the likelihood of conflict and reduce the likelihood of displacement that might force outward migration.”

That doesn’t seem likely in the near term. The president attempted to cut funding for United States Agency for International Development by 33 percent this year, though bipartisan support for the federal government’s dedicated aid agency staved off the proposal.

By deporting hundreds of thousands of Central Americans from the United States, the administration, like the Obama administration before it, is bolstering gang recruitment in countries like El Salvador, according to a December report from the International Crisis Group. That worsens the violence that many cite as a main reason for fleeing northward.

Even if the White House backtracks on “substantially” cutting the combined $500 million in aid the United States gave to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador last year, Trump has halted payment of the $3 billion the nation pledged under the 2015 Paris Agreement to help poorer countries adapt to climate change.

In December, the Trump administration broke with two decades of military planning and removed reference to climate change from the White House’s 56-page National Security Strategy report. But if militarizing the border becomes long-term climate policy, Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian military historian, has said enforcement will require bloodshed.

“Remember the Iron Curtain?” Dyer said in a lengthy 2010 lecture. “You can only shut the border if you’re willing to kill people.”

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

Yup. My observation after decades of study and involvement is the only ways to close a border are: 1) put up machine gun turrets and shoot anyone who approaches; or 2) make your country so completely miserable and unattractive that nobody wants to go there.

For everyone else, the best you can do is control. And control requires a realistic approach to legal immigration.

The Trump Administration’s studied disdain for history, science, and facts of all types can’t help but be bad news for us and the world, particularly future generations. Policies based largely on White Nationalism, racism, xenophobia and other irrational biases seldom succeed in the long run.

PWS

10-27-18

TAL @ SF CHRONICLE: TRUMP CONSIDERING USE OF TRAVEL BAN AUTHORITY TO CLOSE SOUTHERN BORDER TO ASYLUM SEEKERS!

Trump administration considers travel ban-like order for Mexican border

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering an executive action that could use travel ban-like authority to block certain asylum seekers at the Mexican border, sources familiar with the discussions said Thursday.

The proposal is not yet finalized and could ultimately be cast aside, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is in the formative stages. If President Trump approved such a plan, it would represent a dramatic escalation in border enforcement as a migrant caravan works its way north through Mexico.

The administration is working rapidly to draft the possible executive action, which could effectively use the same legal authority that Trump invoked last year in imposing a ban against people from several mainly Muslim countries from traveling to the U.S., said a government source who has seen a working version of the plan and several sources who had it described to them.

“The administration is considering a wide range of administrative, legal and legislative options to address the Democrat-created crisis of mass illegal immigration,” a White House official said on condition of anonymity when asked about the effort. “No decisions have been made at this time. Nor will we forecast to smugglers or caravans what precise strategies will or will not be deployed.”

More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-administration-considers-travel-ban-like-13337662.php

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

Forget Nukes, Star Wars, terrorist attacks, or cyber wars. All it takes to bring the “brave” leaders of the (formerly) most powerful nation on earth to their knees is a few thousand unarmed folks walking over a thousand miles desperately seeking justice under American law.

I knew we’d all live to regret it when the Supremes let Trump off the hook in the Travel Ban case. While some of the mealy-mouthed Justices who voted to unleash Trump from the Constitution might have thought that their spineless pleas for reason and prudence and their obsequious deference to the Executive would have a restraining effect, truth is it just emboldened him by showing that the GOP-Justices were afraid to cross him in a showdown case.

So, now Trump can just suspend any law that proves inconvenient for his White Nationalist agenda by invoking a transparently bogus “national security” rationale! Wonder whose rights will be next to go? Wonder what the Supremes will do when he comes to get them using their own misguided jurisprudence against them?

PWS

10-25-18

JAMELLE BOUIE @ SLATE: GOP Might Find That Their Message Of Bigotry & Racism Eventually Will Have Diminishing Returns!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/donald-trump-bigotry-midterms.html

Jamelle Bouie writes in Slate:

Donald Trump runs on fear. Once again, he’s closing out an election season with a direct appeal to the darkest impulses of the American psyche. “The Democrats don’t care what their extremist immigration agenda will do to your communities,” he said at a rally in Arizona last week, packing xenophobia into the false assertion that “Democrats want to throw your borders wide open to deadly drugs and endless gangs.” On Monday, he did the same when talking about the caravan of Honduran migrants heading for the United States, falsely saying that “Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in” with the group.

Trump obviously believes his strategy of riling voters up with bigotry is effective. What’s striking is the political press agrees with him. “This pure brute force from Trump could work,” notes NBC News, “because there is no equal response from Democrats.” On Twitter, the New York Times’Maggie Haberman asserted similarly that this “controversial, race-baiting” rhetoric has been “effective for him politically.” And looking at these remarks in the context of the 2016 election, Axios asserts that “immigration and stoking fear about Mexican immigrants propelled Trump to the White House.”

But this conventional wisdom—that bigotry wins votes and elections—depends on imprecision around the idea of “effective.” The media has taken the fact that Trump became president aftermaking those appeals as evidence they broadly work; the fact that Republican primary voters endorsed Trump’s nativism and xenophobia has somehow become proof that it’s a viable election strategy whenever it’s deployed. But neither claim—and both are key assumptions made by political analysts in the Trump era—stands to serious scrutiny. And while Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric undoubtedly resonates with many Republicans, there’s no strong indication that it works on its own as an “effective” message among Americans writ large.

Republicans beyond Trump have made a similar gambit that racist insinuation will energize their supporters and move voters in their favor. In a predominantly white congressional district in upstate New York, GOP political groups have attacked Democrat Antonio Delgado, who is black, as a “big city rapper” who favors “handouts” from the government. In Florida, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis has attacked his black opponent, Andrew Gillum, in terms that evoke racist tropes. In California, Republican incumbent Rep. Duncan Hunter has attacked his Arab-American challenger, Ammar Campa-Najjar, as a “security risk” with potential ties to “radical Islam.”

The proof of concept behind this strategy is Trump’s successful election. Trump relied on racism and anti-immigrant sentiment to drive his message, the argument goes, and while it may have produced some defections among college-educated whites, it also attracted enough whites without degrees to win narrow victories in places where they formed a large share of the voting population, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But missing from this narrative is the critical influence of Trump’s extremely optimistic message on jumpstarting the economy, which co-opted and muddled Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric on issues like wages and infrastructure. To voters cross-pressured by cultural conservatism on one end and liberal economic views on the other, Trump promised a synthesis attuned to their identities as blue collar white Americans—they could have both.

It’s that synthesis which—along with Clinton’s stark unpopularity and extraordinary events like the FBI’s intervention—produced Trump’s victory. In its absence, Republicans have not fared nearly as well, even as they’ve tried to replicate the president’s strategy of open and explicit bigotry.

There’s concrete evidence of this. In the final weeks of the 2017 Virginia gubernatorial race, Republican Ed Gillespie remade himself as a demagogue by playing on white racial resentment with ads blasting Democrat Ralph Northam for “sanctuary cities” and the MS-13 gang. He promised to protect the state’s Confederate monuments and tried to tie Northam to professional football player Colin Kaepernick’s protest against police brutality. Gillespie lost by 9 percentage points, and Virginia Republicans came one seat from losing an almost 20-year majority in the House of Delegates.

Alabama Republicans similarly chose an authentically Trump-like figure, Roy Moore, to replace Jeff Sessions in the Senate. He ran a Trump-like campaign of dishonesty, demagoguery, and casual bigotry. He was even accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women who alleged inappropriate behavior when they were teenagers and he was an attorney in his 30s. Despite this controversy, he was favored to win, running in an electorate that hadn’t chosen a Democrat for statewide office in more than a decade. But a Democratic surge, and Republican disenchantment, produced a surprise win for Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee.

Most recently, the Republican candidate in the special election for Pennsylvania’s 18^thCongressional District, Rick Saccone, described himself as “Trump before Trump was Trump.” He ran as an acolyte of the president in a district that politically and demographically favored the Republican Party. He lost by a slim margin to Democrat Conor Lamb.

The key difference between Trump and these candidates? Economic messaging. Trump rejected conservative economic wisdom on retirement spending and other social programs during his presidential campaign, but neither Gillespie nor Moore nor Saccone had an economic agenda distinct from the national Republican Party. (Saccone ran away from the president’s signature legislative accomplishment—the Tax Cut and Jobs Act—on account of its deep unpopularity.) So while they could mobilize core supporters with appeals to racial threat, they couldn’t reach those cross-pressured voters, compete with conventional Democratic candidates, or overcome an active and energized Democratic electorate.

For further evidence, you can look to Senate races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. As a candidate, Trump promised to tailor his economic policy to their needs; as president, he pursued large, upper-income tax cuts and pushed deep cuts to Medicaid and other social insurance programs. The result has been backlash against the GOP as Democrats recover lost ground even in the face of the president’s racial demagoguery. Some of this is Democratic mobilization against the president and his constant presence in national life, and some of it reflects shifting partisan loyalties among white voters with college degrees. But some of the change is also Democratic improvement with voters who backed Trump two years ago.

Republican politicians wouldn’t be scrambling to announce their support for key parts of the Affordable Care Act—and President Trump wouldn’t have fabricated a middle-class tax cut—if the party weren’t aware of the necessity of a viable economic message. And the extent to which voters don’t believe Republican rhetoric on health care and taxes might actually explain the sudden increase in the intensity of the president’s attacks on undocumented immigrants and other marginalized groups, as well as his decision to embrace terms like “nationalist” to emphasize his commitment to a racialized vision of citizenship and belonging.
His economic bet is not working this time, so he’s leaning hard on what he perceives as his other strength.

The energy is so high and the political environment so unique that it’s difficult to project an outcome for November, even if polls continue to show a Democratic advantage in the race for the House and a Republican one in the race for the Senate. President Trump and his allies clearly hope that by stirring the demons of American life, they can create an electoral barrier high enough to stop any potential blue wave.

But the elements that rendered Trump effective in 2016—a heterodox economic message, an unpopular opponent, and outside influences—do not exist in 2018, and the media would do well to remember that. Republicans can still fan the flames of fear, but there’s no guarantee that won’t generate Democratic energy in opposition.

Racial hysteria has been a part of many winning campaigns in our country. But it’s rarely the only part. Trump is gambling that it, and it alone, can carry him and his party past the finish line for a second time. But this is a gamble, and one that is more likely to fail than they seem to realize.

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

Yup. Ultimately, White Nationalism, no matter how viscous, dishonest, and toxic, can’t halt the march of demographics. And, Trump and the GOP are working hard at offending, insulting, and disrespecting virtually every group in the U.S. except straight, right-wing Christian White Males and the (mostly White) women who support them. Even voter suppression and gerrymandering can only do so much. “Bought and paid for” Federal Judges won’t live forever. Eventually, the screw will turn.

PWS

10-24-18

ASHCROFT EVISCERATED THE BIA – NOW SESSIONS PLANS TO POUND THE LAST NAIL INTO THE COFFIN! — Quotes BY “Our Gang” Member Judge Jeffrey Chase!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/412571-sessions-seeks-to-expand-power-on-immigration-cases

Lydia Wheeler writes The Hill:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appears to be exploring a rule that would expand his judicial power, and that some say would allow him to drastically reshape federal immigration policy.

In a notice posted this fall, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it is planning to propose a change to the circumstances in which the attorney general can take and rule on immigration cases.

Under past practice, immigration experts say attorneys general have only stepped in to affirm or overturn cases once the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has given a ruling. Such interventions by attorneys general have also been rare.

Under the new proposal, the attorney general could make rulings on immigration cases before they get to the BIA.

“It’s very disturbing,” said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel at MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

He argued the proposed change, which was included in the fall semiannual regulatory agenda released by the White House, would give the attorney general too much power.

“This is an attorney general that has already demonstrated when he has done this under existing rules that he is biased, inhumane and, frankly, probably influenced by some racist views,” Saenz said.

DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Sutton called Saenz’s characterization “absurd and woefully ignorant.”

“It is widely acknowledged that our immigration system is broken and the attorney general has been steadfast in his pursuit of a lawful and functional immigration system where all Americans can thrive,” she said.

“The Department of Justice’s record demonstrates a commitment to the safety and security of all Americans while treating all persons with fairness and dignity. To suggest otherwise is to ignore facts.”

The notice in the regulatory agenda, which maps out agency actions for the coming year, said the cases where the attorney general could intervene would include “those pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals but not yet decided and certain immigration judge decisions regardless of whether those decisions have been appealed to the BIA.”

Plans for the proposed rule were first listed on the spring regulatory agenda released in May. At that time, the expected release date was September 2018. The action has now been delayed until March.

Sessions has already been aggressive in getting involved with BIA cases even without the proposed rule change.

Since taking office in February 2017, Sessions has stepped in seven times after the BIA has made a decision, and offered five rulings — each adverse to the immigrant.

By comparison, the two attorneys general who served during former President Obama’s eight years in office took over just four cases, said Katrina Eiland, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Rulings from the attorney general are enormously consequential because they set precedent for immigration judges to follow.

In June, Sessions essentially made it impossible for victims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum by overturning a BIA decision to grant asylum to a Salvadoran woman who said she was a victim of domestic abuse.

“The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” he wrote in his opinion.

Some have argued this authority to adjudicate immigration cases is a way for attorneys general to advance immigration policy.

Alberto Gonzales, who served as attorney general under former President George W. Bush, suggested in a 2016 Iowa Law Review article he co-wrote that it could have been a less controversial way for Obama to roll out his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“This authority, which gives the Attorney General the ability ‘to assert control over the BIA and effect profound changes in legal doctrine,’ while providing ‘the Department of Justice final say in adjudicated matters of immigration policy,’ represents an additional avenue for the advancement of executive branch immigration policy that is already firmly embodied in practice and regulations,” the article said, quoting a Fordham Law Review article written by Joseph Landau.

Jeffrey Chase, who served as an immigration judge and a senior legal immigration adviser at the BIA under former President Clinton, said the DOJ’s rule would give Sessions free range to change the law in whatever way he feels, whenever he wants.

He said it would bring the system into an era of uncertainty over what is settled law.

Unlike federal district and circuit courts that are part of the federal judiciary branch, immigration courts fall under DOJ control. Immigration judges are DOJ employees and do not serve lifetime appointments like federal district and circuit court judges.

Immigration advocates say Sessions has already taken steps to cut away at their judicial independence.

DOJ announced in an April memo obtained by The Wall Street Journal that it was setting quotas to expedite immigration cases and NPR Newsreported in May that Sessions had ordered judges to stop putting deportations on hold by closing out cases while immigrants apply for visas and green cards.

Immigration advocates say the plan in the regulatory agenda appears to be another step to further cut back their power.

“It appears to be another move to further control the immigration courts and that’s problematic for due process and fairness in giving immigrants a fair shake in their immigration proceedings,” Eiland said.

Chase said the good news, from his perspective, is the policies set through rulings from the attorney general can be easily undone by a new administration.

Still, experts are alarmed by what they see as a broader effort by Sessions to rewrite immigration law.

“It seems transparent the intent to allow the attorney general to manipulate and distort the process by short-circuiting the normal procedures in order to impose the outcome he seeks,” said Lucas Guttentag, who served as senior counsel to Secretary of Homeland Security under the Obama administration.

But there is a question as to whether DOJ can legally do what it’s planning.

“I don’t know if they’ll get away with it,” Saenz said. “I think there are limits to his discretion and this would probably be very troubling to a court because it circumvents the due process provided in the immigration system.”

Decisions from the BIA and final rulings from the attorney general can be appealed to a federal circuit court, but Chase said Sessions’s rulings have not been final. He has instead sent cases back to immigration judges for further action, which delays the opportunity to appeal.

“He’s been very clever about not leaving any case in a position where it could be [directly] appealed,” Chase said.

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

So, Sessions proposes to essentially strip the BIA of its authority to render major legal precedents. Their primary role would become insuring that U.S. Immigration Judges “toe the White Nationalist lines” laid down by Sessions or his successors. So much for the “expertise” of the BIA or the importance of developing policies through case-by-case litigation. I guess Sessions’s “precedents” have all been “cooked” in advance by restrictionist groups. No need to pay attention to facts or legal arguments that conflict with Sessions’s long-held racist-restrictionist views on immigration.

Session’s proposed “takeover” of the BIA’s appellate functions also raises some interesting issues:

In view of his political statements, can he function as an independent quasi-judicial adjudicator in individual cases? Article IIIs have applied judicial rules of conflict and disqualification to individual IJs and BIA Members. (Indeed, I seem to remember a case in which an Article III got upset because then-Chair Dave Milhollan unwittingly voted in a case that had passed through Appellate.Counsel while he was at INS.) If IJs or BIA Members made political statements and prejudgements of pending issues they would be disqualified from individual cases. Why not Sessions? Judges are not supposed to have prosecutorial roles. But Sessions clearly fancies himself the “chief prosecutor!”
Since he isn’t a true “independent quasi-judicial adjudicator,” and has no particular expertise in immigration adjudication, why should Sessions get Chevron deference?
He’ll probably be gone soon. But, that doesn’t mean his successor will abandon the restrictionist immigration agenda. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that Trump would nominate anyone who is not a committed White Nationalist restrictionist as a replacement.

Meanwhile, what’s the purpose of an appellate board whose primary function appears to be rubber stamping one-sided political decisions?

PWS

10-24-18

CNN AM REPORT: Lies, Racism, & White Nationalism Appear To Be Keys To Success For Trump & GOP!

President Trump

For the first time, President Trump called himself a “nationalist” during a rally in Texas last night for Sen. Ted Cruz, fully embracing the label that’s defined his populist rhetoric and protectionist policies. The President also escalated his attacks on the migrant caravan making its way through Mexico. He claimed, without a shred of evidence, that MS-13 gang members and “unknown Middle Easterners” were among those in the caravan. Trump basically insinuated that terrorists have infiltrated the group, though CNN crews have observed mostly mothers and children, and a senior counterterrorism official refutes the President’s claim.In what is essentially his closing argument for the midterms, the President is engaged in a fact-free, racially charged diatribe the likes of which we’ve never seen, says CNN’s Stephen Collinson. But here’s the most shocking part: It may work. In some polls, Trump’s approval rating has reached all-time highs, giving the GOP hope the much-predicted “blue wave” will turn into a washout.

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

How much more one-party minority rule by Trump & the GOP can the US survive? It remains to be seen.

PWS

10-22-18

TRUMP LAUNCHES PREDICTABLE LARGELY FACT FREE TIRADE AGAINST DESPERATE MIGRANTS – They Aren’t A Threat To Our National Security – But, Trump & His White Nationalist Policies Of Hate & Xenophobia Are!

http://time.com/5430940/donald-trump-migrant-caravan-false-claims

Katie Reilly reports for Time:

For more than 15 years, nonprofit groups have helped hundreds of asylum-seeking migrants journey through Central America to the United States, traveling together in a caravan to make the journey safer and their plight more visible. Thousands of Central American migrants currently walking to the U.S. border are doing the same, fleeing deadly violence on a trek that has drawn international focus.

As many as 7,000 migrants, according to one local estimate, have now joined the caravan that started on Oct. 13 in Honduras, many wearing flip flops and carrying their children on a journey that will be at least 1,500 miles long, depending on which part of the U.S. border they reach.

President Donald Trump — who has long critiqued U.S. immigration policies and denigrated immigrants since the start of his presidential campaign — has made numerous baseless claims about the caravan in recent weeks, spreading alarm and touting it as a “Great Midterm issue for Republicans!” Trump has claimed, without evidence, that the group included “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners” and falsely suggested that Democrats funded the caravan. He also blamed Democrats for the current immigration laws, though Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

“I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emerg[enc]y,” Trump tweeted early Monday, threatening to cut off foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador for not “stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S.”

But videos and reporting from journalists traveling with the caravan of migrants show weary families making an arduous journey because of violence or lack of opportunity in their home countries, and no evidence that there are “unknown Middle Easterners” among the group.

“The migrants are ordinary people from Central America. They’re joining the caravans because the migration routes through Mexico are perilous for them and highly expensive,” says Elizabeth Oglesby, an associate professor of Latin American studies at the University of Arizona, who has studied Central America and human rights issues. “The more that the border has become militarized between the U.S. and Mexico, the more perilous and the more expensive the journey has become for Central Americans. So that’s why we see people coming together in the caravans.”

She says the caravan, which is larger than many of its annual predecessors, has grown because of how word spread on social media and because of worsening conditions in Honduras, where the murder rate is among the highest in the world and where the government has cracked down on political protestersfollowing last year’s disputed presidential election.

Oglesby says just a fraction of migrants who begin the trek make it to a U.S. point of entry each year, as many turn back or peel off if they can find work or safety in Mexico instead.

While no specific group has said it’s responsible for organizing the current caravan, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, founded in 2010, has led asylum-seeking migrants through Central America for more than 15 years, most recently in April — another caravan that drew ire from Trump. The group aims to “provide shelter and safety to migrants and refugees in transit, accompany them in their journey, and together demand respect for our human rights.” Some Pueblo Sin Fronteras leaders and organizers are involved in the current caravan.

Trump has lashed out at the caravan as an example of illegal immigration, threatening to deploy U.S. military force to “close our Southern border” and stop what he has described as a crisis. But illegal border crossings have been declining overall for more than a decade, though the number of border apprehensions fluctuates month-to-month. And under U.S. law, it is legal to petition for asylum at the border, though the process may be lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful.

“These migrant caravans are not a border crisis,” Oglesby says. “People are doing this openly and visibly, and they plan to show up at the U.S. port of entry and petition for political asylum, and that is exactly how our laws are supposed to function. The crisis comes about when U.S. border officials discourage people from political asylum, leave them on the bridges or threaten them that if they go forward with a political asylum claim, they might lose their children.”

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

Katie is hardly the only informed observer to note that Trump is even more full of BS, fabricated facts, and bogus scare techniques than usual on this one.

Here’s Maegan Vasquez over at CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/politics/donald-trump-migrant-caravan-fact-check/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump, in a series of tweets on Monday, claimed he would declare a “national emergency” over an issue that has frequently piqued his attention — migrant caravans moving toward the United States through Central America and Mexico.

His tweets come just weeks ahead of the 2018 midterm elections and he has emphasized immigration as a key issue, without evidence accusing Democrats of pushing for overrun borders in what appears to be a naked fear campaign aimed at turning out his supporters. Immigration was a key issue in the 2016 presidential race.

Crowds of migrants, estimated to be in the thousands on Monday, resumed their long journey north on Sunday into Mexico as part of a migrant caravan originating in Central America.

Bolton and Kelly get into heated shouting match sparking resignation fears

Currently migrants are at the Central Park Miguel Hidalgo in the center of Tapachula. Organizers plan for them to begin moving north, reaching the northern city of Huixtla, which is about 20 miles north, and resting there.

The President, in his tweets, also made several questionable claims concerning immigration and the caravan. Among them: that “unknown Middle Easterners” are “mixed” in with the caravan, that he would be cutting off foreign aid over the caravan, and that Mexican authorities failed to stop migrants from coming into Mexico.

Asked later Monday about his assertion about “unknown Middle Easterners” in the caravan, Trump said: “Unfortunately, they have a lot of everybody in that group.”

“We’ve gotta stop them at the border and, unfortunately, you look at the countries, they have not done their job,” he said. “They have not done their job. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador — they’re paid a lot of money, every year we give them foreign aid and they did nothing for us, nothing.”

Here’s what we know:

Are there “unknown Middle Easterners” “mixed” into the migrant caravan?

Trump tweeted “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed” into the migrant caravan moving toward the United States. He called this a “national emergy” (sic).

It’s unclear what “unknown Middle Easterners” Trump appears to be referring to in his tweet, since there have been no reports, in the press or publicly from intelligence agencies, to suggest there are “Middle Easterners” embedded in the caravan.

A senior counterterrorism official told CNN’s Jessica Schneider that “while we acknowledge there are vulnerabilities at both our northern and southern border, we do not see any evidence that ISIS or other Sunni terrorist groups are trying to infiltrate the southern US border.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday afternoon that the administration “absolutely” has evidence of Middle Easterners in the caravan, “and we know this is a continuing problem.”

However, she did not provide the specific evidence supporting that claim.

During a White House conference call with surrogates regarding the caravan, a Homeland Security official said the administration is looking into a claim from Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales that his country has been able to capture around 100 terrorists. However, the official did not offer any evidence of the Middle Eastern people who Trump claims are hiding among migrants in the caravan.

“We are looking into that claim from the President Morales on the numbers,” Jonathan Hoffman, the DHS official, said. “It is not unusual to see people from Middle Eastern countries or other areas of the world pop up and attempt to cross our borders.”

Earlier this month, Morales claimed foreign individuals linked to terrorism were captured in the country during his administration, which began in January 2016.

“We have arrested almost 100 people highly linked to terrorist groups, specifically ISIS. We have not only detained them in our territory, they have also been deported to their countries of origin. All of you here have information to that effect,” Morales said during a Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America event attended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

There’s no direct link or correlation between Morales’ statement and Trump’s assertion about the caravan on Twitter.

The Department of Homeland Security also did not provide any evidence to bolster the President’s claim about “unknown Middle Easterns” in the caravan when asked for it by CNN on Monday.

A department official told CNN that in fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection “apprehended 17,256 criminals, 1,019 gang members, and 3,028 special interest aliens from countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and Somalia. Additionally, (Customs and Border Protection) prevented 10 known or suspected terrorists from traveling to or entering the United States every day in fiscal year 2017.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not specify any Middle Eastern countries.

Pressed about the President’s assertion that there are “unknown Middle Easterners” mixed in with the caravan, a State Department spokesperson said they understand there are several nationalities in the caravan and referred us to Department of Homeland Security for more information.

Will the administration cut off foreign aid? Can they?

Trump is threatening foreign aid over the new migrant caravan. Here’s what’s at stake.

Trump tweeted that because “Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S.,” the United States “will now begin cutting off, or substantially reducing, the massive foreign aid routinely given to them.”

It’s unclear where the administration will propose to make the cuts the President appears to be talking about, and CNN has reached out to the White House and the DHS for further information.

However, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act prohibits the President from withholding — or impounding — money appropriated by Congress.

New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said Monday that his office has reached out to the Government Accountability Office to ensure that the President does not violated the act.

“Fortunately, Congress — not the President — has the power of the purse, and my colleagues and I will not stand idly by as this Administration ignores congressional intent,” Engel said in a statement.

Trump has made the threat of cuts to foreign aid going to Latin American countries over migrant caravans several times over the last year.

Under the Trump administration, and with the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress, there have already been significant cuts to foreign aid to Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras — the three countries he mentioned Monday — and the administration plans to continue making cuts in fiscal year 2019.

Were authorities from Mexico unable to stop the migrant caravan from heading into the US?

Migrant caravan resumes march north from Mexico-Guatemala border

Trump tweeted Monday that “Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States.”

There are some 7,500 people marching north as part of a migrant caravan through Mexico, caravan organizer Dennis Omar Contreras told CNN. He said the organizers did a count of participants Monday morning.

He said the migrants will leave Mexico’s Tapachula for the town of Huixtla, which is located more than 20 miles northwest of their Monday morning location.

While Mexican authorities said before the caravan’s arrival that anyone who entered the country “in an irregular manner” could be subject to apprehension and deportation, many migrants from the caravan appear to have circumvented authorities.

CNN crews witnessed migrants jumping off a bridge at the Mexico-Guatemala border and riding rafts to reach Mexican soil.

Mexican authorities say more than 1,000 Central American migrants officially applied for refugee status in Mexico over the past three days.

It’s unclear how authorities will respond to the thousands of other migrants who are marching north.

Will the President declare a national emergency over the caravan?

It’s unclear exactly what executive action, if any, the President will take following his tweet saying that he has “alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National (emergency).”

Previous administrations have ordered troops to the US southern border, and Trump issued a similar memorandum earlier this year ordering National Guard troops to be deployed to the US-Mexico border. The memo came around the same time another, smaller migrant caravan was moving toward the US through Central America.

Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Davis, a spokesman for the Defense Department, told CNN that “beyond the National Guard soldiers currently supporting the Department of Homeland Security on our southern border, in a Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502(f) duty status under the command and control of the respective State Governors, the Department of Defense has not been tasked to provide additional support at this time.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and Border Protection, referred questions about the national emergency to the White House, which did not answer to several questions for comment.

Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and the former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told CNN that the President’s use of the term national emergency, and his potential subsequent declaration, is “a subjective judgment.”

“It is certainly true that the numbers that have been reported in this group are larger than anything that we’ve seen before this from these countries concentrated in one group,” she said.

However, she added that the reaction is “disproportionate to what’s happening.”

“I’m not saying it’s not a genuine problem, but it’s not like this is organized insurrection, in the way that its been characterized,” she added.

CNN’s Catherine Shoichet, Sarah Westwood, Ryan Browne, Jennifer Hansler, Geneva Sands, Dakin Andone, Patrick Oppmann, Natalie Gallón, Kevin Liptak and Jessica Schneider contributed to this report.

This story has been updated.

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

And, here’s the ever-wonderful Tal from her “new home” over at the SF Chronicle:

Here’s what happens when the migrant caravan arrives at U.S. border

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — President Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric Monday about a caravan of thousands of Central Americans making its way toward the U.S., even as uncertainty grew over what will happen to the migrants if they reach the border.

Trump has seized on the caravan as a key talking point heading into the midterm elections. The president has been pointing to the growing group of migrants as justification for his aggressive immigration proposals.

“Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy. Must change laws!” Trump tweeted Monday.

A source familiar with the government’s information on the caravan said there was no evidence Middle Easterners were mixing into it. It’s unclear whether Mexico will allow the group to continue the remaining 1,000-plus miles to the U.S. border without interfering.

More:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-s-what-happens-when-migrant-caravan-13327887.php#photo-16376169

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

Actually, contrary to the false narrative put out by Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, and others, our legal system is set up to handle this situation:

USCIS could move additional Asylum Officers to ports of entry along the Southern border, particularly given the substantial advance notice;
Arriving migrants could be promptly and fairly screened for “credible fear;”
Those who pass could be matched with available pro bono lawyers and released to those locations where their lawyers and community support are located, thus insuring a high rate or appearance for asylum hearings in Immigration Court;
Those who fail credible fear could be returned to their home countries in a humane manner, perhaps working with the UNHCR;
If the Administration wants these cases to be “prioritized” in a backlogged Immigration Court system, they could remove an equal number of “low priority” older cases from the docket, thus preventing growth in the backlog and largely avoiding “Aimless Docket Reshuffling;”
The Refugee Act of 1980 could be used to establish a robust program for screening and resettlement of refugees directly from the Northern Triangle, thus both reducing the incentive to make the land journey to apply for asylum and setting a leadership example for other countries in the hemisphere to take additional refugees from the Northern Triangle;
We could work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries to establish shared resettlement programs for those who flee the Northern Triangle and can’t return;
We could invest more foreign aid in infrastructure, and job creation programs in the Northern Triangle which would deal with the causes of the continuing outward migration.

We do know from experience and observation what won’t work: incarceration, prosecutions, threats, family separation, child abuse, misconstruing asylum law against applicants, tirades directed against sending and transit countries, saying “we don’t want you,” etc.

PWS

10-22-18

APPROXIMATELY 700,000 TRANSGENDER HUMAN BEINGS LIVE IN THE U.S. – The Trump Administration Seeks To “Define” Them Out Of Existence!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

Erica L. Green, Katie Benner and Robert Pear report for the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.

The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.

For the last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Image
, now at the Department of Health and Human Services, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity.CreditAaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the department, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the department confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”

In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”

“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.” After this article was published online, transgender people took to social media to post photographs of themselves with the hashtag #WontBeErased

The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.

Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.

After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”

Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”

Image

A transgender flag outside a bar in Brooklyn. The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.CreditAnnie Tritt for The New York Times

Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.

But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”

Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.

In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.

“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”

The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.

One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.

But it would also raise new questions.

The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, like sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”

The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.

Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 21, 2018 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump May Limit How Government Defines One’s Sex. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

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

Historical footnote: At one point in our “respective prior incarnations,” circa late 1970s, early 1980s, Robert Pear was the “immigration beat” reporter for the NY Times, and I was the Deputy General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.” I was sometimes asked by the Commissioner and the Public Information Office to respond to Robert’s telephonic inquiries. Smart, knowledgeable, incisive, and a “straight shooter” was how I would have described him in those days.

Moving on, I had a number of transgender individuals appear before me in Immigration Court. Almost all of them had been damaged by rejection, abuse, intentional cruelty, and humiliation inflicted by family, governments, teachers, and other community members who should have known better. The majority had either attempted suicide or admitted to having suicidal impulses. Yet, many appeared to have found the courage and determination to persevere.

Sadly, the attempt to deny the legal existence and humanity of transgender individuals seems to be something right out of the “Third Reich Playbook.” Using the law to “pick on,” target, and “legitimize” the dehumanization of already marginalized minorities was a “Hitler specialty.” And, in too many cases, lawyers and the judiciary were more than happy to help out. Some were even eager to “out-Hitler Hitler.”

History will deal harshly with the hate, racism, and intolerance being promoted by the Trump Administration. Where will YOU be recorded as standing! What have YOU done to remove these horrible individuals from public office and to resist their toxic and immoral programs and actions?

PWS

10/21/18

JEFF SESSIONS WON’T LIKE THIS: 11th Cir. Says It Won’t “Rubber Stamp” BIA (Unfortunately Unpublished)!

11thCir-RubberStamp201811099

ALFREDO MARQUEZ-MARTINEZ v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 11th Cir., 10-17-18, Per Curiam, Unpublished

KEY QUOTE:

When reviewing an agency decision for abuse of discretion, we evaluate whether the agency’s exercise of its discretion was arbitrary or capricious. Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 713 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013). The arbitrary- and-capricious standard is “exceedingly deferential”—we are not authorized to substitute our judgment for an agency’s so long as its conclusions are rational. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

That being said, we may nonetheless find an agency action arbitrary and capricious where an agency has “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. (citing Ala.–Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250, 1254 (11th Cir. 2007)).

Here, Marquez-Martinez has demonstrated that the denial of his motion to reopen was arbitrary and capricious. As indicated by the BIA, the IJ’s decision rested solely on two “negative” grounds: (1) Marquez-Martinez’s delay in filing the motion to reopen and (2) Marquez-Martinez’s prior relationships. Neither the IJ nor the BIA, however, provided any reason why these factors counted against Marquez-Martinez—indeed, the IJ explicitly discounted the only reason for which either factor could support a denial of Marquez-Martinez’s motion.

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

Recently, Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he wants everyone to know just how deeply, deeply offended and totally outraged he is that Federal Judges (unlike his captive “Immigration Judges”) have, on some occasions, had the absolute audacity to insist that he and the Trump Administration comply with the law. Normally, the 11th Circuit is pretty willing to “go along to get along” with whatever the Government wants to do to migrants. So, you know that the BIA and Sessions were totally out of control for the court to assert itself in this manner, even in an unpublished case.

Obviously, Trump and his GOP buddies like McConnell are counting on appointing lots of wimpy right-wing judges who will be loath to intervene to stop the Government from pillaging the individual rights of ordinary Americans for the benefit of rich GOP “fat cats” and religious and social extremists. It will be interesting to see what these judges do if and when the Government again becomes controlled by Democrats who want to act in the overall public interest, rather than just protecting White privilege.

Stay tuned!

PWS

10-18-18

LEXISNEXIS: SCOFFLAW NATION: New Amnesty International Reports Document Trump Administration’s Intentional Abuses Of International Refugee Protection Standards, Call For Congressional Action!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/amnesty-international-report-illegal-pushbacks-arbitrary-detention-ill-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-in-the-united-states

Posted by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Amnesty International Report: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in the United States

Amnesty International, Oct. 11, 2018 – “The US government has deliberately adopted immigration policies and practices that caused catastrophic harm to thousands of people seeking safety in the United States, including the separation of over 6,000 family units in a four-month period more than previously disclosed by authorities, Amnesty International said in a new report released today.

USA: ‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here’: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention and Ill-treatment of Asylum-seekers in the United States reveals the brutal toll of the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine and dismantle the US asylum system in gross violation of US and international law. The cruel policies and practices documented include: mass illegal pushbacks of asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border; thousands of illegal family separations; and increasingly arbitrary and indefinite detentions of asylum-seekers, frequently without parole.

“The Trump administration is waging a deliberate campaign of widespread human rights violations in order to punish and deter people seeking safety at the US–Mexico border,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.”

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

No, desperate families seeking refuge at our Southern Border don’t pose any real threat to the U.S., regardless of what Trump might say and whether they ultimately are found qualified or unqualified to enter. What does pose a real threat to our nation and to the legal rights and future of every American is “waging a deliberate campaign of widespread human rights violations in order to punish and deter people seeking safety at the US–Mexico border.”

PWS

10-18-18

LEXISNEXIS: New Suit Highlights How Sessions & Other Trumpsters Knowingly & Intentionally Violate U.S. Asylum Laws!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/new-legal-filing-links-high-level-trump-officials-to-asylum-turnback-policy—al-otro-lado-inc-v-nielsen

Posted by Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

New Legal Filing Links High-level Trump Officials to Asylum “Turnback Policy” – Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen

American Immigration Council, Oct. 16, 2018 – “In a new court filing, asylum seekers and an immigrant rights group are challenging the Trump administration’s policy and practice of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Friday’s filing directly links high-level Trump administration officials to an official “Turnback Policy,” ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to restrict the number of asylum seekers who can access the asylum process at ports of entry. The Turnback Policy compounds other longstanding border-wide tactics CBP has implemented to prevent migrants from applying for asylum in the U.S., including lies, intimidation, coercion, verbal abuse, physical force, outright denials of access, unreasonable delay, and threats—including family separation.

The new filing was brought by the Los Angeles and Tijuana-based organization Al Otro Lado, Inc. and individual asylum seekers who are collectively represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Immigration Council. The attorneys allege that the Trump administration policy and practice violate U.S. and international law and subject vulnerable asylum seekers to imminent danger, deportation, or death.

“Every day we work with survivors of horrific physical and sexual violence, doing our best to provide the necessary resources to extremely vulnerable individuals. They come to our border to seek safety for themselves and their children. The United States, in implementing the Turnback Policy, cavalierly rejects thousands of these individuals, retraumatizing them and stranding them alone and destitute. It is hard to overstate the cruelty with which CBP operates,” said Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project director at Al Otro Lado.

Attorneys say practices under the Turnback Policy are directly attributable to high-level Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The filing cites Sessions’ characterization of asylum seekers as deliberately attempting to “undermine our laws and overwhelm our system,” and Nielsen’s reference to the legally required process of receiving and processing asylum seekers at the border as a “loophole.” The filing also quotes U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers as stating, “We have orders not to let anybody in.”

“Internal CBP documents released in this case reveal that high-level CBP officials authorized a Turnback Policy as early as 2016 to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to the U.S-Mexico border,” said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project. “The Turnback Policy has escalated under the Trump administration and has been buttressed by a wide range of unlawful tactics that CBP uses to deny asylum seekers access to the protection they deserve.”

Said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “Ever since the horrors of World War II, the world’s nations have committed to giving asylum seekers the opportunity to seek safe haven. The Trump administration has turned its back on this most elementary humanitarian principle, in violation of U.S. and international law, and is subjecting vulnerable men, women and children who are fleeing horrific conditions at home to continued terror, violence and in some cases, death.”

Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution in their home countries, and suffer unspeakable harm en route to the United States at the hands of Mexican government officials, cartels, and gangs. When they are turned away at ports of entry, the lawsuit alleges, they are compelled to either enter the U.S. illegally and be prosecuted, stay trapped in Mexico where they are targeted by criminal groups, or return home to face persecution and death. The filing recounts an extensive array of inaccurate information and abusive treatment those seeking asylum have faced at the hands of U.S. border officials, including that the U.S. is no longer providing asylum or that people from specific countries are not eligible; yelling at, harassing, and assaulting asylum seekers and their children; threatening to take children away from their parents; and setting up “pre-checkpoints” that prevent asylum seekers from reaching the U.S. border. Over four consecutive days in March, CBP officials turned away Guatemalan asylum seekers, saying “Guatemalans make us sick.”

The filing amends a previous filing challenging CBP’s turnbacks of asylum seekers at ports of entry. The challenged practices were initially implemented in 2016 and greatly exacerbated by the Trump administration.

Read the filing here.

For more information, visit CCR’s case page and the American Immigration Council.

American Immigration Council, Oct. 16, 2018 – “In a new court filing, asylum seekers and an immigrant rights group are challenging the Trump administration’s policy and practice of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Friday’s filing directly links high-level Trump administration officials to an official “Turnback Policy,” ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to restrict the number of asylum seekers who can access the asylum process at ports of entry. The Turnback Policy compounds other longstanding border-wide tactics CBP has implemented to prevent migrants from applying for asylum in the U.S., including lies, intimidation, coercion, verbal abuse, physical force, outright denials of access, unreasonable delay, and threats—including family separation.

The new filing was brought by the Los Angeles and Tijuana-based organization Al Otro Lado, Inc. and individual asylum seekers who are collectively represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Immigration Council. The attorneys allege that the Trump administration policy and practice violate U.S. and international law and subject vulnerable asylum seekers to imminent danger, deportation, or death.

“Every day we work with survivors of horrific physical and sexual violence, doing our best to provide the necessary resources to extremely vulnerable individuals. They come to our border to seek safety for themselves and their children. The United States, in implementing the Turnback Policy, cavalierly rejects thousands of these individuals, retraumatizing them and stranding them alone and destitute. It is hard to overstate the cruelty with which CBP operates,” said Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project director at Al Otro Lado.

Attorneys say practices under the Turnback Policy are directly attributable to high-level Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The filing cites Sessions’ characterization of asylum seekers as deliberately attempting to “undermine our laws and overwhelm our system,” and Nielsen’s reference to the legally required process of receiving and processing asylum seekers at the border as a “loophole.” The filing also quotes U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers as stating, “We have orders not to let anybody in.”

“Internal CBP documents released in this case reveal that high-level CBP officials authorized a Turnback Policy as early as 2016 to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to the U.S-Mexico border,” said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project. “The Turnback Policy has escalated under the Trump administration and has been buttressed by a wide range of unlawful tactics that CBP uses to deny asylum seekers access to the protection they deserve.”

Said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “Ever since the horrors of World War II, the world’s nations have committed to giving asylum seekers the opportunity to seek safe haven. The Trump administration has turned its back on this most elementary humanitarian principle, in violation of U.S. and international law, and is subjecting vulnerable men, women and children who are fleeing horrific conditions at home to continued terror, violence and in some cases, death.”

Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution in their home countries, and suffer unspeakable harm en route to the United States at the hands of Mexican government officials, cartels, and gangs. When they are turned away at ports of entry, the lawsuit alleges, they are compelled to either enter the U.S. illegally and be prosecuted, stay trapped in Mexico where they are targeted by criminal groups, or return home to face persecution and death. The filing recounts an extensive array of inaccurate information and abusive treatment those seeking asylum have faced at the hands of U.S. border officials, including that the U.S. is no longer providing asylum or that people from specific countries are not eligible; yelling at, harassing, and assaulting asylum seekers and their children; threatening to take children away from their parents; and setting up “pre-checkpoints” that prevent asylum seekers from reaching the U.S. border. Over four consecutive days in March, CBP officials turned away Guatemalan asylum seekers, saying “Guatemalans make us sick.”

The filing amends a previous filing challenging CBP’s turnbacks of asylum seekers at ports of entry. The challenged practices were initially implemented in 2016 and greatly exacerbated by the Trump administration.

Read the filing here.

For more information, visit CCR’s case page and the American Immigration Council.

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

It’s a strange system where the victims of law violations are punished while the “perps” — folks like Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, etc — walk free and are allowed to continue their lawless behavior.

Even stranger: A guy like Sessions — a scofflaw “Jim Crow Throwback” if there ever was one — has the absolute audacity to whine, complain, and even threaten when occasionally Federal Judges intervene in relatively limited ways to force him and even Trump to comply with our country’s laws and our Constitution. But, I suppose that’s what free speech is all about. Nevertheless, Sessions’s freedom to express his opinions that mock, distort, and mischaracterize our laws doesn’t necessarily entitle him to act on those opinions in a manner inconsistent with those law.

PWS

10-18-18

PRISCILA ALVAREZ @ THE ATLANTIC: Sessions’s Influence Over Justice In The U.S. Immigration Courts Will Continue Long After His Departure!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-sessions-carrying-out-trumps-immigration-agenda/573151/

Priscilla writes in The Atlantic:

Dorothea Lay was on track to become a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. Her 25-year government career had prepared her for the post, as reflected in four letters of recommendation from academics and current and former officials. In December 2016, nine months after submitting her application, she was offered the job. But administrations changed, Jeff Sessions assumed the role of attorney general, and by early 2018, the offer was withdrawn.

Why?

That’s the question at the center of a complaint filed by Lay, an Idaho native, with the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative body. In a letter to Lay, 53, the Executive Office for Immigration Review said it rescinded her offer because “the needs of the agency have evolved,” even though the agency announced around the same time that it wanted to expand the size of the appeals board. The complaint suggests that political considerations may have been taken into account in reviewing Lay’s background, citing Lay’s letters of recommendation from people who “had liberal backgrounds or were perceived as having liberal backgrounds.”

The suspicion of politically based hiring has lingered among Democrats, who raised concerns in April and again in May. In the May letter, directed to Michael E. Horowitz, Democrats urged the inspector general of the Justice Department to investigate “allegations of politicized hiring practices,” citing cases in which offers for immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals positions had been delayed or withdrawn. (Lay’s attorney, Zachary Henige, is also representing two other people who claim their offers were withdrawn over political differences.) Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd responded to the Democrats’ allegations in a letter: “As stated in every immigration judge hiring announcement, the Department of Justice does not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.”

The investigation into Lay’s complaint is ongoing, so it’s still not clear whether there were ulterior motives behind the withdrawal of her offer. But the case speaks to how DOJ can pick and choose who fills roles and in doing so, influence who’s at the helm of deciding immigration cases.

This isn’t unique to this administration. The Justice Department has considerable leeway when appointing immigration judges—the immigration courts are part of its direct purview. The attorney general therefore has unique authority to overrule decisions and hire immigration judges. To that end, Sessions appears to be shaping the court by, at the very least, hiring former law enforcement officials as immigration judges.

Read: The end of civil rights

“The more you bring people from the same background, the same set of experiences, the same perspective, the more you expose the court to criticism,” said Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “Those decisions will be more open to being questioned.”

Of the 140 judges hired since Donald Trump’s inauguration, more than half have past prosecutorial experience or some other government experience. The pace of hiring has also stepped up: In fiscal year 2017, the Justice Department hired 64 immigration judges, compared to 81 in fiscal year 2018—bringing the total of immigration judges to 395, according to data released by EOIR. Sessions’s hiring spree is not unusual—and it’s also not unwarranted: His predecessors brought on new immigration judges, and the immigration court backlog also continues to creep up, with the latest figure at more than 760, 000 pending cases. Of the newly hired immigration judges, at least half had received conditional offers during the Obama administration, said Kathryn Mattingly, assistant press secretary at EOIR, in an email.

It’s not just how many immigration judges are being brought on but where they’re being located. EOIR has hired immigration judges for two adjudication centers—in Falls Church, Virginia, and Fort Worth, Texas—where cases from around the country will be heard through video teleconferencing. Judges will be located at the centers, while attorneys and respondents will be in separate locations. According to Rob Barnes, a regional public information officer for EOIR, immigration judges at these centers will be evaluated like others. It’s likely then that thousands of immigration cases will be heard with respondents never seeing a judge face to face.

Across the board, there appears to be a preference for people who come from an enforcement background, according to biographies of newly hired immigration judges posted by the Justice Department. Of the 23 judges announced in August, more than half previously worked with the Department of Homeland Security, and of those remaining, most came from a law enforcement background. In September, EOIR announced 46 new immigration judges, two of which will serve in a supervisory role: 19 previously worked for ICE, 10 had served at DOJ or as a former local prosecutor, and seven had a background in military (one of whom previously served in Guantánamo). It’s not yet known how these judges will rule once they’re on the bench and whether their enforcement background will inform their decisions. But experts, attorneys, and current and former immigration judges have warned about hiring too many people from government before.

“It’s not that we’re saying [those] with law enforcement or military background are unqualified,” Tabaddor, the head of the immigration judges association, told me. “A diverse bench is what brings fairness and legitimacy to court. It’s very important for a court to be reflective of the people it serves and the community at large to gain legitimacy and respect.”

Mattingly, the EOIR spokeswoman, has provided a series of specific qualifications that all candidates for immigration judge must possess.

Previous administrations also pulled from within government, reasoning that candidates have already passed background checks and can therefore be hired more quickly. But that can present some challenges. It’s possible that having spent years fighting in court on behalf of the government, an individual might be biased, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration lawyer in North Carolina. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, of which McKinney is a part of, and National Association of Immigration Judges, have called for the pool of immigration judges to also include people from private firms and academia.

Read: Trump’s immigration crackdown is overwhelming a strained system

Their concerns were backed up by Booz Allen Hamilton, which conducted a year-long study of the immigration court system at EOIR’s direction. The April 2017 study found that at least 41 percent of immigration judges previously worked in the Department of Homeland Security, and nearly 20 percent worked at other branches within the Justice Department. The report recommended broadening “hiring pools and outreach programs to increase diversity of experience among [immigration judges].” It’s not clear whether the Justice Department took the study into account in putting together its hiring plan in April 2017, the same month the study was presumably handed over.

The hiring of immigration judges has always been a contentious issue: complaints have been lodged about there not being enough career diversity; it often takes months to hire judges (though the Justice Department recently pushed the time it took down from an average of 742 days to about 266 days); and political affiliations have previously been weighed in selecting judges. In 2008, the Inspector General issued a report on the hiring practices of DOJ in selecting attorneys, immigration judges, and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The report concluded that hiring based on political or ideological affiliation is in violation of department policy.

The fear, as expressed by some Democrats, legal experts and immigration advocates, is that Sessions is improperly seeking out conservatives in order to to influence the tilt of the nation’s immigration courts and hire a large cadre of immigration judges who will likely far outlast his tenure.

“I think he’s trying to get a complacent judiciary: ‘Forget the title, you guys are really DOJ employees, you’re out there to carry out my policies,’” said Paul W. Schmidt, former chairman of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001 and a former immigration judge.

Beyond who the Justice Department decides to bring on board, the message Sessions sends down to judges can also heavily influence their decisions, as direct reports to the department, Schmidt and others argue.

Read: The Democratic effort to keep Jeff Sessions in office

In September, for example, Sessions delivered remarks to a new class of immigration judges, the largest in history, according to the Justice Department, in which he pressed them to decide cases swiftly. “You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently,” he said. “As you take on this critically important role, I hope that you will be imaginative and inventive in order to manage a high-volume caseload. I do not apologize for expecting you to perform, at a high level, efficiently and effectively.”

The message was striking given who it’s intended for. “If he was speaking to attorneys, that’d be normal. He has the right to set prosecutorial policy,” McKinney said. “That doesn’t translate to immigration judges.” Judges—even when they are DOJ employees—are expected to be independent. By effectively telling them how to handle cases and how quickly, the Justice Department is infringing upon that independence, McKinney said.

And Sessions’s words weren’t just an expression of what he hopes judges will do either. As of October 1, the expectation to “efficiently and effectively” adjudicate cases is being enforced. Earlier this year, the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of rolling out quotas for judges. To receive a “satisfactory” performance evaluation, judges are required to clear at least 700 cases a year. According to the Justice Department, judges complete 678 cases a year on average now, meaning they will have to pick up the pace to remain in good standing.

This fall, DOJ expects to bring on at least 75 more immigration judges. Even if Sessions days as attorney general are numbered, as Trump has suggested, his selections will decide the fate of immigrants, for years to come.

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

While immigration advocates might look forward to the day of Session’s departure from DOJ just as much as Donald Trump does, in the case of immigration the wonton damage and carnage he has inflicted on our justice system, particularly in the area of immigration, won’t easily be repaired. And, the repairs can’t even begin until after we get “regime change.”

PWS

10-16-18

POPULATION OF TENT CITIES IN TRUMP’S “KIDDIE GULAG” HAS INCREASED 5X – The Solution, According To Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, & Miller: Detain Even More Children & Families For Longer Periods Of Time!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/tornillo-tent-city?utm_term=.oolylVZRJr#.oolylVZRJr

Amber Jamieson reports for BuzzFeed News:

TORNILLO, Texas — Having immigrant teens live in the “tent city” in Tornillo, Texas, was always supposed to be a temporary solution, after the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant families at the border meant the government didn’t have enough beds in the shelter system.

It opened in June, and the contractor running the site had a 30-day contract. At that time, 326 children were being housed there.

But four months after its opening, the shelter 30 miles outside of El Paso has grown into a bustling town. It now holds nearly five times its initial population — roughly 1,500 teens — and its contract has been extended until at least Dec. 31.

The tent city’s purpose has changed as well. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency responsible for the care of unaccompanied child immigrants, say none of the teens currently housed there were detained as a result of family separations. It now holds immigrant children who crossed the border without an adult, in theory as a last stage of their stay in the vast US shelter bureaucracy.

And as the shelter expands, administrative issues have cropped up concerning legal representation and FBI background checks — extending many teens’ stays longer than what HHS says is the average.

Tornillo now has a new football field, math and English classes, and more than 100 tent structures. Staffers zipped around in carts between dozens of portable offices offering mental health services, emergency medical care, legal services, and even a barber. A huge emergency tent has been turned into a sleeping hall for 300 teenage girls, decorated with paper chains and lanterns.

BuzzFeed News toured the Tornillo facility for the second time on Friday, as part of a group of reporters. Like the first and only other tour, instructions were strict. No photographs or recording devices were allowed, and reporters were not permitted to use the names of employees or speak with the teens living at the camp — though HHS was more lenient on the last rule during Friday’s tour. The only photos were provided by the government.

HHS

The facility in Tornillo, Texas.

“I frankly thought we were done here in July,” the facility’s incident commander, who works for the contractor BCFS, told reporters Friday. He spoke from a new command center that is nearly triple the size of the office he occupied in June.

Back then, the same incident commander, who is in charge of running the shelter, called the Trump administration’s family separation policy — which created the need for Tornillo — “an incredibly dumb, stupid decision.” With the rollback of that policy, he said he expected the camp to shut soon afterward.

“I’m still here, ’cause otherwise, where are these kids going?” the commander said.

Only children between ages 13 and 17 stay at the Tornillo facility, which is now the largest in the HHS’s nationwide system. Pregnant teens, and teens requiring behavioral medication, are not allowed — “we’re too big, too high-profile,” the incident commander explained.

Officials said the average length of time that teens spend at Tornillo is 25 days. Yet many of the teens living at the camp have spent weeks or even months in HHS shelters before arriving at Tornillo. In order to clear out those other facilities, teens are sent to the tent shelter to await final processing before they are released to a sponsor in the US.

“This is a last stop, if you will,” said Mark Weber, a spokesperson for HHS.

Ten teens in Tornillo BuzzFeed News encountered had spent between three to five months in government detention — significantly more than the 59 days that HHS says is the average stay for an unaccompanied immigrant minor in its care. That average is up from 48 days in 2017, and around 30 days during the Obama administration.

Christopher Smith / HHS Photo Christopher Smith

And even after arriving in Tornillo, the young occupants find themselves facing a fresh final set of administrative hurdles that threaten to complicate or delay their stay in the US shelter system.

One of the teens BuzzFeed News spoke with last week, a 16-year-old girl from Guatemala, told reporters that she’d been in Tornillo exactly one month on Saturday. Before being transferred to Texas, she had spent four months in an HHS shelter in Miami, meaning she’d already spent five months in HHS care. She was uncertain how much longer she’d remain there.

Her brother, who lives in Texas and had been in the US for a decade, is trying to sponsor her, which should secure her release. But he is undocumented, and he told her that her caseworker is not sure if he will be able to act as a sponsor.

She didn’t want to go back to Guatemala, where her parents are. “I suffered a lot in the journey [to the United States], and what, for nothing?” she said.

Another teenage girl standing next to her told reporters she’d also come to Tornillo from the Miami shelter at the same time, and that she’d crossed the border four months earlier.

The delays stem in part from a new requirement — that the FBI perform a fingerprint background check — imposed by the Trump administration on family members and other adults who wish to sponsor an unaccompanied immigrant minor.

Those changes are delaying how long kids are staying in care, and have created the ongoing need for Tornillo to operate as a temporary shelter to handle the overflow from permanent HHS shelters, said the incident commander. He added that more than half of the children at the Tornillo shelter are there because of FBI delays.

Christopher Smith / HHS Photo Christopher Smith

“It is the extra precaution that HHS has put in place for sponsors,” said the incident commander on Friday. “That is absolutely what has caused this, without any question whatsoever.”

While he applauded the extra care HHS has taken to ensure the safety of unaccompanied minors, the incident commander criticized the length of time the FBI takes to do fingerprint checks. On Friday, 826 of the kids in Tornillo were still awaiting the results of fingerprint checks, the final step needed before they are released, he said.

“I think it should be done quickly,” the incident commander said. “I don’t understand why it’s taking so long. It seems like a system issue. … That is frustrating to me.”

He noted that it takes time to do background checks, but said that HHS is “working through the process [with the FBI] and working to speed it up.” He did not provide further details.

Asked if the teens who end up in Tornillo spend longer than the average stay in the shelter system, Weber replied: “I don’t think that’s [true]. … These kids are very close to being released.”

Weber also argued that the need for the Tornillo facility is “driven by the number of kids crossing the border” — which this year, he said, is set to be the third highest on record. Around 50,000 unaccompanied minors are expected to cross the border this year.

Christopher Smith / HHS Photo Christopher Smith

On Thursday, BuzzFeed News visited the juvenile immigration proceedings in downtown El Paso. Eleven teenage boys from the Tornillo facility, aged between 15 and 17, had been given notice to appear in court on that day.

The boys were dressed in new, matching navy and white polo shirts, denim jeans or khakis, and black, braided leather belts. They had fresh haircuts.

The judge asked the boys if they had copies of their Notices to Appear, a charging document issued by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement informing them of removal proceedings, and read the date on which each NTA had been issued. Dates ranged from June 6 until July 1, meaning the teenagers had been in HHS care for a minimum of over three months — longer than the average stay.

None of the boys had legal representation at the court hearing — they were just accompanied to court by a BCFS employee. All of them asked the judge to delay their cases so they could find an immigration lawyer. They were given until late January to do so.

The HHS spokesperson said it’s just not his agency’s job. “Yes, children are appearing in court, but that is not part of HHS’s responsibility,” Weber told reporters on Friday. “Those legal options are pursued basically after they are released from us.”

Juveniles facing immigration proceedings do not have the right to a government-appointed lawyer. Weber said the children who appeared in court would absolutely have received legal help beforehand.

Everyone in HHS care receives a “Know Your Rights” training, Weber said, and upon arrival to Tornillo, the teenagers are again reminded that they are able to speak with a lawyer. Ten legal representatives — a combination of lawyers and social workers from different legal organizations — are on hand on weekdays in Tornillo to meet with children.

But those lawyers don’t formally represent them. They offer advice to the children.

And those representatives only meet with detainees if the teen specifically asks to see a lawyer, the incident commander said. He estimated that of the approximately 3,100 teens who have been housed at Tornillo since it opened, only about 400 had requested and received a meeting with a legal representative.

Christopher Smith / HHS Photo Christopher Smith

Moreover, to organize a meeting with the lawyers, the children must fill out a form — a difficult task for many of the children at Tornillo. The incident commander said most of the facility’s residents are at a fourth-grade learning level.

Asked how children in the care of HHS with very little education were supposed to be able to navigate the legal system alone, or even the process of arranging and interacting with a lawyer, Weber acknowledged that “negotiating the legal system is incredibly difficult.”

Although the incident commander is hopeful the facility will close on Dec. 31, Weber didn’t commit to that deadline. “It depends how many kids come,” he said.

The facility — its population peaked at 1,637 on Sept. 28 — has 1,400 beds on standby in two giant tents. This is in case the Homestead shelter in Florida — another temporary facility that opened during the family separation crisis — needs to evacuate due to a hurricane.

In immigration court Thursday, Judge Robert S. Hough, who oversees all juvenile immigration proceedings in El Paso, asked the BCFS employee assisting the children before him about Tornillo’s supposed Dec. 31 closing date.

“Hurry up and wrap it up before you get any bigger,” suggested the judge.

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

Once the smokescreen of all the Trump lies and racism clears, how could we ever explain to future generations what we have done to the most vulnerable among us and to children, young people, and young families that are our world’s future? I guess it will go along with explaining how have we let Trump and his grifter buddies destroy, pollute, and poison the universe that also belongs to future generations.

PWS

10-15-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Are there “unknown Middle Easterners” “mixed” into the migrant caravan?

Will the administration cut off foreign aid? Can they?

Were authorities from Mexico unable to stop the migrant caravan from heading into the US?

Will the President declare a national emergency over the caravan?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Amnesty International Report: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in the United States

Related posts:

New Legal Filing Links High-level Trump Officials to Asylum “Turnback Policy” – Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: