"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Category: FRIDAY ESSAY — FROM MONTICELLO TO TRUMP MILLER SESSIONS AND THE GOP WHITE NATIONALISTS
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ripped more than 2,600 migrant children from their parents’ arms with no plan or procedures for reuniting them, resulting in some 500 children remaining effectively orphaned even today, five months after the fact. Now it proposes a new policy for jailing migrant children indefinitely, one that ensures they “are treated with dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.”
That assurance, along with its rich irony, is offered by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who has proposed the policy in a brazen attempt to escape the strictures of a two-decade-old court settlement forbidding the long-term incarceration of minors who cross the border seeking asylum in the United States.
Ms. Nielsen, who was instrumental in executing the zero-compassion policy that traumatized so many toddlers, grade-schoolers, tweens and teens this spring and summer, now would have Americans believe her department recognizes children as particularly vulnerable human beings, deserving of dignity and respect. How will that dignity and respect be meted out when those children are confined, along with their parents, in long-term detention facilities that the administration now proposes to build?
Ms. Nielsen, along with immigration hard-liners such as White House adviser Stephen Miller, are convinced that so-called catch-and-release policies are largely to blame for the flow of families across the southern border. Among the factors contributing to those policies is the 1997 court agreement known as Flores, which arose from abundant evidence that migrant children had been harmed by long-term detention, and forbade it.
The reality is that Flores has been in effect for more than 20 years, during which migrant flows have dipped and surged. When the Trump administration tried, just a few months ago, to amend the Flores agreement to permit long-term detention of families, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected its argument that the agreement was to blame for a recent surge in border crossings. “Any number of other factors could have caused the increase in illegal border crossings, including civil strife, economic degradation, and fear of death in the migrants’ home countries,” the judge wrote.
The administration’s proposal sets up a new court fight, one that will test Homeland Security’s risible insistence that the new policy would “satisfy the basic purpose” of the Flores agreement while freeing the government to get tougher on migrants. The “basic purpose” of Flores was to protect children from harm; confining them defeats that mandate.
It is legitimate to take concrete steps to ensure that migrant families appear in immigration court when ordered to do so. Ankle bracelet monitors, bail and other means of achieving that have been effective, and their use can be expanded. What’s less effective, and at odds with American values, is the administration’s abiding faith in punitive measures where children are concerned. There’s no evidence that they work to cut illegal border-crossing; there’s plenty of evidence of their cruelty.
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
Image
Undocumented immigrants at a bus station in McAllen, Tex.CreditCreditIlana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times
For all the human brain’s mysteries, its development is quite well understood. Early childhood and adolescence are crucial times of unparalleled neural growth. Just as trust and stability can enhance that growth, fear and trauma can impede it. Institutionalization, in particular, can have profound and deleterious effects, triggering a range of developmental delays and psychiatric disorders from which recovery can be difficult, if not impossible.
In light of that knowledge, the Trump administration’s latest move against immigrant children is especially troubling. On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security proposed new regulations that would allow the government to detain migrant children indefinitely. Officials are now prohibited from detaining such minors for more than 20 days by an agreement known as the Flores settlement, which has been in place since 1997. The new rules would end that settlement and would likely open the door to an expansion of detention centers across the country.
D.H.S. says that by eliminating Flores, officials will deter illegal immigration, reasoning that undocumented adults will be less likely to enter the country to begin with if they know they can’t avoid long-term detention simply by having a child in tow. Immigration activists say the proposed rule’s true aims are both simpler and more diabolical than that: “They want to strip away every last protection for detained immigrant children,” says Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
Even with Flores in place, those protections have proved thin. Youth migrant shelters — there are roughly 100 such facilities housing more than 10,000 minors across the country — have been cited for a long list of abuses, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, blatant medical neglect, the forcible injection of antipsychotic medications, the unlawful restraint of children in distress and harsh rules that prohibit even siblings from hugging one another. The shelters in question, several of which are facing lawsuits, are part of a network that has received billions of federal dollars in the past four years alone. That money has continued to pour in even as abuse allegations have multiplied.
Related
For more on detained migrant children
Restraint Chairs and Spit Masks: Migrant Detainees Claim Abuse at Detention Centers
Opinion | The Editorial Board
The Continuing Tragedy of the Separated Children
The administration bears unique responsibility for these violations, in no small part because its disastrous and short-lived separation policy has wreaked havoc on a system that was already rife with problems. Shame alone should have federal officials working hard to undo the damage of that policy and to prevent further harm to the children under their charge, never mind that it’s the right thing to do under any number of international agreements and norms.
But their latest plan is more likely to exacerbate existing problems than to resolve them. The proposed regulations would eliminate the standing requirement that detention centers submit to state inspections and would narrow the scope of relatives to whom children can be released to only parents and legal guardians — no aunts, uncles or other extended family members. It would also trigger a proliferation of new facilities: The administration projects that Immigration and Customs Enforcement-run family detention would increase from 3,000 beds to 12,000. The number of shelters for unaccompanied immigrant minors may also grow.
The proposals will be open to public comment for the next 60 days before they can be finalized. Readers who wish to register their concern can do so on the Federal Register’s website.
After that period, the issue is almost certainly headed to court. Observers say the same judge who has ruled against past attempts to undermine Flores is likely to thwart this attempt as well.
Which paints a stark reality for what’s motivating this move and what it ultimately means: The administration surely knows what a long shot this proposal is, but it will undoubtedly excite President Trump’s political base as the midterm elections approach. So while the administration plays politics, the well-being of thousands of children who came to America seeking protection and safety will be put at risk — today and, developmentally, for the rest of their lives.
The Trump administration wants no limits on how long it can detain migrant kids and their parents.
Of all the appalling things the Trump administration has done, the cruelest has to be arresting and detaining asylum seekers, and separating them from their children. Seeking to deter desperate families from entering the United States by detaining parents for weeks or months apart from their children is so hard-hearted it shocks the conscience. The cruelty has been compounded by ineptitude, as hundreds of migrant children have been stranded in the United States without their parents, who have been deported.
Thankfully, the administration’s callousness has been held in check by a court order left over from President Clinton’s second term. The 1997 settlement agreement in Flores vs. Reno requires, among other things, that children facing deportation be held in detention for no more than 20 days, and in the least restrictive environment possible. Courts later extended the agreement to include families with minors in detention centers. (The government has been sued at least five times for allegedly violating the order.)
Now the Trump administration wants to scrap the agreement entirely by instituting even more draconian regulations that would allow it to detain families with minors as long as it may take to resolve their deportation cases. That’s beyond the pale.
Migrant children seeking permission to remain in the U.S. should not be detained regardless of whether they have a parent to accompany them in confinement. It’s especially troubling that one of the administration’s stated reasons for doing so is to send a threatening message to other families who might seek asylum in the U.S. from dangerous circumstances in their home countries.
Of course, the government has the right and duty to set immigration laws and enforce them. And we have a system for that, broken as it might be. Current U.S. law allows asylum to be granted to people facing persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “membership in a particular social group.” If immigration courts rule that applicants don’t meet those requirements, or reject appeals by people seeking permission to stay on humanitarian grounds, the government is entirely within its rights to send them to their home countries. But it should not (and may not, under international agreements) incarcerate them — especially when they are children — unless there is good cause to think the migrants are a flight risk or pose a threat to public safety.
Remember, most of these families arrive seeking official permission to stay, so they have a powerful incentive not to skip their court hearings or break the law: doing so only leads to deportation orders. Advocates argue that most of the aslyum seekers who do miss court dates never received an appearance notice, often because the process takes so long that their addresses change and official records don’t catch up. As for public safety, a raft of studies has found that immigrants, regardless of their status, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans.
If no-shows truly are the administration’s concern, it inherited a new Family Case Management Program from the Obama administration that matched eligible asylum-seeking families with housing, healthcare, schooling for the children and legal advice to help navigate the immigration court system. Families in that program had a 99% show-rate for court hearings. But Trump killed it last year.
Under the Flores agreement, the government can hold minors only in state-licensed facilities. But states tend not to license facilities for families, which, the government argues, means that it must release the families while the deportation cases continue.
The new regulations would let the federal government do the licensing of facilities, paving the way for a massive expansion of the detention system. The government currently uses three family detention centers with a total of 3,500 beds. They are secured, dormitory-style facilities with shared bathrooms, common areas, play space and rooms for classes. Trump wants to add 15,000 more beds, but that may just be the start; border agents caught 77,674 people migrating as families in 2016 alone.
It is fundamentally inhumane to incarcerate children — with or without their parents — while immigration courts try to figure out what to do with them. Psychiatrists warn of the damage even from short-term detentions, and some of those who have been held for months have shown signs of severe emotional distress and post-traumatic stress disorder. So in its obsessive quest to stop migrants from seeking asylum, the Trump administration is willing to, in essence, commit child abuse. That’s a stain not just on the presidency, but on the nation.
***************************************
The White Nationalist Scofflaws are at it again! Even if were effective as a deterrent (which all reliable data and experience show it isn’t), detention for deterrence would still be illegal.
Join the New Due Process Army and fight to uphold our Constitution and true American values against the White Nationalism, racism, cruelty, xenophobia, and lawlessness of Trump, Sessions, and their cronies! Put an end to Sessions’s “New American Gulag” (“NAG”)!
Over the past few months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has faced fierce criticism for his role in the Trump administration’s family separation policy. But while the White House continues to deal with the fallout from tearing kids away from their parents at the border, Sessions has been busy orchestrating another, much quieter attack on the country’s immigration system.
Tensions have been simmering for months between the attorney general and the hundreds of judges overseeing immigration courts, but they reached a new high in July. The flashpoint was the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan man who was scheduled to appear in a Philadelphia immigration court, but had repeatedly failed to turn up. The judge, Steven Morley, wanted to determine whether Castro-Tum had received adequate notice, and rescheduled a hearing for late July. But instead of waiting for that appointment, the Justice Department sent a new judge from Virginia to take over the case. Judge Deepali Nadkarni subsequently ordered Castro-Tum deported.
The move sparked immediate outcry: The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing about 350 immigration judges, filed a formal grievance, and 15 retired immigration judges released a public statement condemning the action. “Such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable,” they wrote.
This was just the latest of many accusations that Sessions and his Justice Department were interfering with judicial independence in immigration courts. Since the beginning of the year, the attorney general has severely limited judges’ ability to manage their cases, increased pressure on judges to close cases quickly, and dramatically reshaped how America determines who it will shelter. While Sessions isn’t the first attorney general to exercise these powers, immigration advocates say he’s using his authority in unprecedented ways and as a result severely limiting due process rights for migrants.
Unlike most courts, immigration courts are housed within the executive branch, meaning immigration judges are actually DOJ employees. Sessions is therefore ultimately in charge of hiring judges, evaluating their performance, and even firing them. He can also refer cases to himself and overrule previous judges’ decisions, setting precedents that effectively reshape immigration law.In a little more than six months, Sessions has issued four consequential decisions on immigration cases he referred to himself, in some instances overturning decades of legal precedent. Attorneys general under the Obama administration used that power only four times over eight years.
“We’re seeing Attorney General Sessions take advantage of the structural flaws of the immigration court system,” says Laura Lynch, the senior policy counsel at AILA, which has joined the judges’ union in asking Congress to make the immigration courts independent of the Justice Department.
Sessions’ changes have been “extremely demoralizing,” says Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “I’ve been in the field for 40 years, and I have never seen morale among immigration judges so low.”
Here are the biggest ways Sessions is attacking the immigration courts:
It’s now much more difficult to apply for asylum
In June, Sessions overturned a decision granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman, known in court documents as A-B-, who had escaped an abusive husband. He used the case as an opportunity to declare that migrants can’t generally be given asylum based on claims of domestic abuse or gang violence—a catastrophic blow to the tens of thousands of Central American migrants fleeing these dangers.
Sessions’ decision, though, doesn’t just affect how judges can rule. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that helps process asylum cases, interpreted his decision to mean that survivors of domestic and gang violence usually won’t pass their initial “credible fear” interviews after they cross the border—a first step that determines whether asylum seekers are even allowed to make their case before a judge. As Mother Jones’ Noah Lanard has reported, immigration lawyers say they’ve seen “overwhelming” numbers of migrants denied at the credible fear interview stage since Sessions’ decision.
In a statement, a group of former immigration judges described this decision as “an affront to the rule of law,” pointing out that it challenges longstanding protections for survivors of gender-based violence. “Women and children will die as a result of these policies,” Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, toldMother Jones when the decision was first announced.
A group of asylum seekers is now suing Sessions in federal court, arguing that this new policy violates due process rights and contradicts existing immigration law. They say that the policy’s sweeping generalizations ignore the requirement that each case be heard on its own merits.
Making matters even more complicated, in another decision earlier this year, Sessions vacated a 2014 precedent that guaranteed asylum applicants have the right to a full hearing before a judge can decide on their case. “The implications of [the new decision] are tremendous,” says Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of Law and one of the lawyers representing A-B- and the asylum seekers suing Sessions. “It’s basically saying that a judge can decide a case on the papers alone, and not allow an individual the right to present their case in front of that judge.”
Judges have less control over their case loads …
This summer wasn’t the first time Castro-Tum’s case drew national attention. Judge Morley had “administratively closed” the case back in 2016—a common step that judges have used to set aside thousands of cases, oftentimes when immigrants had no criminal background or had been in the US for many years and had family ties. Though the cases weren’t technically closed, they were put on hold and typically never re-opened, usually so judges could focus on higher-priority cases.
Earlier this year, Sessions re-opened Castro-Tum’s case by referring it to himself, and used it to severely restrict when judges could use administrative closure. That sent the case back to Morley, which is how the DOJ ended up replacing the judge and sparking widespread outrage.
The judges union has said that administrative closure is an important and necessary tool for judges to manage their caseloads, and removing it would result in an “enormous increase” in a court backlog that’s already piling up with almost 750,000 cases. Sessions’ decision also noted that cases which had previously been administratively closed, such as Castro-Tum’s, could now be re-opened, potentially adding thousands more cases to the backlog and creating further uncertainty for the defendants.
… and will have to move through them more quickly
In a somewhat related move, in April, Sessions and the Justice Department announced new performance metrics for judges. According to a DOJ memo, judges would now need to complete at least 700 cases a year, as well as close cases within a certain time period, in order to receive a satisfactory performance review. If they fail to receive satisfactory marks, judges could potentially lose their jobs or be relocated. According to the memo, judges currently complete on average 678 cases a year. The new measures will go into effect October 1.
The judges’ union, legal scholars, and other associations have strongly criticized the move, noting that case quotas would place enormous pressure on judges to quickly complete cases and affect their ability to fully hear cases—likely leading to more deportations.
“A tough asylum case takes about three to four hours to complete, but they’re pushing judges to schedule three or four cases a day, which is probably twice as many as most judges could do and do a good job on…It’s basically inviting people to cut corners,” says Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration. “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
It’s harder for them to reschedule cases
On August 16, Sessions limited the ability for judges to issue continuances, which they did to postpone or reschedule removal cases, often when a defendant was waiting for a visa or another kind of immigration benefit and needed time to resolve their pending applications. Sessions has determined judges can now only issue continuances under a “good cause” standard, such as when an immigrant is likely to succeed in their attempt to stay in the US, either by winning an asylum hearing or receiving a visa.
Several retired immigration judges sent a letter to Sessions the next day, calling his decision on continuances a “blow to judicial independence.” They noted that some judges may receive from 10 to 15 requests for continuances a day—and would now need to spend time writing decisions on them, in addition to hearing their cases. “Immigration Judges should be treated as judges, and should be afforded the independent judgment that their position requires, including the basic power to control and prioritize their own case dockets,” the retired judges wrote. Advocates have also expressed concerns that immigrants could now be deported while waiting for another immigration benefit that would have given them legal status.
And as more judges retire, Sessions gets to staff up
Marks, of the judges union, notes there’s been a “tsunami” of retirements over the past two years. “Members of the association are telling us [that] they are leaving at the earliest possible opportunity or choosing to leave now because of the actions of the current administration,” she says. “They do not feel supported. They do not feel that they are free to make the decisions they need to make.”
Given the retirements, Sessions will have the ability to reshape the courts even further: Since January 2017, the DOJ has sworn in 82new immigration judges, and plans to hire at least 75 more this fall. Sessions has also worked to cut down the time it takes to hire judges.
What’s more, the Justice Department has faced allegations of politicized hiring. In April, House Democrats sent a letter to Sessions expressing concern that the DOJ had blocked several judges’ appointments for ideological reasons. The DOJ said in a statement to CNN that it “does not discriminate potential hires on the basis of political affiliation.”
Finally, while the DOJ has a long history of hiring judges with immigration enforcement backgrounds, the judges union has expressed concern that the DOJ may now be “over-emphasizing litigation experience” in its hiring practices, and “created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds.” As of last year, a little over 40 percent of immigration judges previously worked at the Department of Homeland Security.
Schmidt, the retired immigration judge, says he’s worried that even more new judges will come from prosecutorial backgrounds. “Who would really want to work for Sessions, given his record, his public statements?” he asks.
Under Sessions, he says, the immigration court “has become a deportation railway.”
Sent from my iPad
**********************
Great article, bringing together “all of the threads” of Sessions’s White Nationalist destruction of the U.S. Immigration Courts and his vicious racially-motivated attack on refugees from the Northern Triangle, particularly abused women and children.
For many years, “Gonzo Apocalypto” was a GOP “back bencher” in the Senate. His White Nationalist, restrictionist agenda was too much even for his GOP colleagues. His views were quite properly marginalized.
Suddenly, Trump runs for President on an overtly racist, White Nationalist, xenophobic platform. That’s music to Gonzo’s ears and he becomes the earliest Senate supporter.
Wonder of wonders, Trump wins, makes Sessions clone Stephen Miller his top immigration adviser, and appoints Gonzo as AG. His eyes light up. Suddenly, he’s free to dismember the entire Immigration Court, sack it’s Due Process vision, and attack migrants and refugees of color, particularly women, children, and families in ways that are both life threatening and permanently damaging.
He also gets a chance to dismantle civil rights protections, promote homophobia, disenfranchise minority voters, favor far right Evangelical Christianity, fill up prisons with the poor, black, and Hispanic, encourage police brutality against minorities, screw criminal defendants, disregard facts, harm refugees, and, icing on the cake, protect and promote hate speech. It’s a “dream come true” for a 21st century racist demagogue.
That Trump has mindlessly attacked his most faithfully effective racist, White Nationalist Cabinet Member says more about Trump than it does Sessions. Sessions is going to continue socking it to immigrants and minorities for just as long as he can. The further back into the era of Jim Crow that he can push America, the happier he’ll be when he goes on to his next position as a legal analyst for Breitbart or Fox.
Until then, there will be much more unnecessary pain, suffering, degradation, and even death on tap for migrants and their families.
Join the New Due Process Army — stand up against Session’s White Nationalist Agenda!
Dan De Luce and Julia Edwards Ainsley report for NBC News:
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugeesdid not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.
Hard-liners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.
At a meeting in September 2017 with senior officials discussing refugee admissions, a representative from the National Counterterrorism Center came ready to present a report that analyzed the possible risks presented by refugees entering the country.
But before he could discuss the report, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dismissed the report, saying her boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would not be guided by its findings.
“We read that. The attorney general doesn’t agree with the conclusions of that report,” she said, according to two officials familiar with the meeting, including one who was in the room at the time.
Brand’s blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department’s view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.
“She just dismissed them,” said the former official who attended the meeting.
The intelligence assessment was “inappropriately discredited as a result of that exchange,” said the ex-official. The episode made clear that “you weren’t able to have an honest conversation about the risk.”
A current DHS official defended the administration’s response to the intelligence assessment, saying immigration policy in the Trump administration does not rely solely on “historical data about terrorism trends,” but rather “is an all-of-the-above approach that looks at every single pathway that we think it is possible for a terrorist to come into the United States.”
A spokeswoman for DHS said, “If we only look at what terrorists have done in the past, we will never be able to prevent future attacks … We cannot let dangerous individuals slip through the cracks and exploit our refugee program, which is why we have implemented security enhancements that would prevent such violent individuals from reaching our shores, while still upholding our humanitarian ideals.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Following the dismissal of the assessment, anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration clashed with civil servants about how to portray the possible threat from refugees in documents drafted for inter-agency discussions, former officials said. In the end, the president’s decision last year to lower the ceiling for refugee admissions to 45,000 did not refer to security threats, but cited staffing shortages at DHS as the rationale. But once the decision was issued, the White House released a public statement that suggested the president’s decision was driven mainly by security concerns and said “some refugees” admitted into the country had posed a threat to public safety.
An Afghan refugee sleeps on the ground while another looks out a window in an abandoned warehouse where they and other migrants took refuge in Belgrade, Serbia, on Feb. 1, 2017.Muhammed Muheisen / AP file
“President Donald J. Trump is taking the responsible approach to promote the safety of the American people,” said the Sept. 29 statement.
Political appointees in the Trump administration then wrote a new report a few months later that seemed to contradict the view of the country’s spy agencies.
In a press release at the time, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the report showed the need for tougher screening of travelers entering the country and served as “a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists.”
But the report is being challenged in court by several former officials and rights groups who say it inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S. Two lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California allege the report improperly excludes incidents committed by domestic terrorists, like white supremacists, and wrongfully includes a significant number of naturalized U.S. citizens and foreigners who committed crimes overseas and were brought to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.
Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand speaks during the opening of the summit on Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking at Department of Justice in Washington, on Feb. 2, 2018.Jose Luis Magana / AP file
Mary McCord, former assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, which prosecutes terrorism charges, said the January 2018 report is “unfortunately both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”
“The result is a report that presents an inaccurate picture of the threat of terrorism in the United States,” McCord said.
When the report was released in January 2018, Trump tweeted that it showed the need to move away from “random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit based” because it showed that “the nearly 3 in 4 individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges are foreign-born.”
But the report only focuses on international terrorism, which is defined as a crime committed on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. The document excludes domestic terrorism committed by groups such as white supremacists or anti-government militias, which are more likely to be supported by those born in the U.S.
Because of the way the terrorism statute is written, those who support domestic organizations like anti-government or white supremacists groups cannot be charged with terrorism, even if the groups they support have committed crimes. Only supporters of foreign terrorist organizations designated by the State Department can be charged with “material support” of terrorism.
Still, Trump has repeatedly stated that the overwhelming majority of terrorists in the United States came from overseas, even before the 2018 report.
In his first speech to Congress in February 2017, Trump said that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our own country.”
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, MSNBC legal analyst and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, took issue with that statement and sued the Justice Department to provide documents that backed up the president’s claim. But the Department was unable to locate any records.
“There are a lot of domestic terrorism cases, and they are generally not committed by people born abroad. To the extent that those cases were excluded — white supremacist violence, anti-abortion terrorism and militia violence — the inquiry is grossly biased,” Wittes wrote on Lawfare.
Wittes said that almost 100, or about a quarter, of the 402 individuals listed as foreign-born terrorists committed their crimes overseas and were brought to the U.S. to face trial.
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller at roundtable discussion on California immigration policy at the White House on May 16.Evan Vucci / AP file
During her time in government as the chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Barbara Strack said her staff worked diligently to thoroughly vet refugees for any possible terrorist links. But she said there was no information she came across that indicated refugees posed a significant security threat.
“I did not see evidence that refugees presented an elevated national security risk compared to other categories of travelers to the United States,” she told NBC News.
The administration must decide by the end of the month how many refugees to allow in the country in the next fiscal year. Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, known for his hawkish stance on immigration, has been pushing for a drastic reduction in the ceiling.
The cap was set at 45,000 last year, but the number of refugees allowed in the country has fallen far below that ceiling, with only about 20,000 resettled in the United States since October 2017. Rights advocates and former officials accuse the White House of intentionally slowing down the bureaucratic process to keep the numbers down, overloading the FBI and other government agencies with duplicative procedures.
*******************************************
This level of total intellectual dishonesty, overt racism, and policy driven solely by a White Nationalist philosophy and political agenda by an Attorney General is unprecedented in my experience at the DOJ.
If you remember, Brand escaped to a “soft landing” in the private sector earlier this year. One of my theories is that she was trying to protect herself and her reputation for a future Federal Judgeship. If and when that happens, I hope that those serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will remember her completely sleazy role in carrying Sessions’s racist-polluted water on this one. Someone with no respect for facts, the law, humanity, or professional expertise definitely does not deserve to be on the Federal Bench!
And for Pete’s sake don’t credit Sessions with any integrity whatsoever in not resigning under pressure from our “Mussolini Wannabe.” He’s not “protecting” the Mueller investigation or anything else worthy in the DOJ. In fact, he has wholly politicized the DOJ and taken it down into the gutter. The reason he “hangs on” is not because he respects the Constitution or rule of law. Clearly, he doesn’t! No, it’s because he wants to do as much damage to civil rights and people of color as he can during his toxic tenure.
Make no mistake, that damage he has done, as has been reported elsewhere, is very substantial. It has set the goals that Dr. Martin Luther King and others fought for and even gave their lives for back by decades. Despicable!
Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.
Trump admin seeks to keep immigrant families in detention indefinitely
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration has released a proposal to overhaul the way that undocumented immigrant families are treated in custody, a maneuver that would allow the government to keep the families in detention as long as their immigration court case remains open.
The proposed federal regulations would notably revoke the court case known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, which governs how undocumented children can be treated in custody. The regulations are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday.
The more than 200-page rule would have sweeping implications for the immigration detention system in the US and is likely to face swift resistance from advocates who brought the Flores case and those who have supported it.
One of the biggest proposed changes would create a federal license system to allow for detention centers that could hold families. The administration argues that it is the state-based licensing system that is causing issues that would restrict family detention.
The arguments for the rule are similar to the case the administration has made in court before Judge Dolly Gee, who oversees the settlement. Gee has rejected those arguments in her courtroom.
“This rule would allow for detention at (family detention centers) for the pendency of immigration proceedings … in order to permit families to be detained together and parents not be separated from their children,” the rule states. “It is important that family detention be a viable option not only for the numerous benefits that family unity provides for both the family and the administration of the INA, but also due to the significant and ongoing influx of adults who have made the choice to enter the United States illegally with juveniles or make the dangerous overland journey to the border with juveniles, a practice that puts juveniles at significant risk of harm.”
Pretty outrageous. But, about what we would expect from a racist White Nationalist Administration with no respect for the Constitution, laws, Federal Courts, or human dignity, and that is hell-bent on wasting our taxpayer money on evil causes.
I predict that this will “reactivate” the Flores litigation before Judge Gee. She, in turn, will “stuff” the Administration on its insulting, contemptuous, and clearly bogus justification for the detention.
These individuals are coming to the US seeking to exercise legal rights to apply for protection. Every reliable study shows that if released under alternatives to detention, informed of what the system requires, given adequate notice, and, most important, given reasonable access to lawyers they show up for their hearings nearly 100% of the time and actually prevail on the merits in a significant number of cases (the success rate is kept artificially low by the disingenuous anti-asylum jurisprudence created by Sessions and by a pre-existing legal bias in the system against many asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, also fanned and encouraged by Sessions’s overt xenophobia).
Stay tuned for another monumental waste of taxpayer money on yet another misguided Administration attempt to impose a White Nationalist immigration agenda!
By now, I assume everyone has read the explosive “Anonymous NY Times Op-Ed” (linked above) that confirmed 1) what everyone already knew about Trump’s total incompetence for office, and 2) the widely rumored but heretofore not previously confirmed existence of an organized “resistance” to Trump within his own senior staff. While many will take heart from the latter, count me out.
What a bad dream! So, now, as a result of the gutless GOP and their supporters, we have the unelected, self-proclaimed “real conservatives” unilaterally deciding which Trump programs are “worthy” — like tax breaks for the rich or eliminating environmental protections — and which are “unworthy” — like, presumably starting a gratuitous nuclear war or handing the country over to Putin.
Is this really an acceptable solution to this GOP/White Nationalist created problem?
What about taking our country back at the ballot box from the anti-American Trump base? What about “outing” these self-proclaimed “saviors” and confronting the GOP with the need to initiate some “removal proceedings” against Trump?
What these “internal resisters” really are doing is putting their own egos over the good of the country. They need to resign, tell what they know, and demand action to remove Trump immediately.
Time to vote every Republican out of office.
Yes, Trump’s removal would result in the ascension of
“Mike the Terrible” Pence to the office of President. Under normal circumstances that would be an unparalleled national disaster in its own right. But, obviously, these aren’t normal times.
Some actually are speculating that “Mikie” is the “Deep Bloat” here. Seems unlikely given his record of sycophancy; on the other hand, he’s the one guy Trump can’t fire. And, stranger things have happened — like Trump being inflicted on us in the first place.
In the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight Trumpist White Nationalism in all of its insidious forms.
Over the Labor Day weekend, official Washington staged a celebration of itself through the funeral of John McCain. The insularity on display somewhat understandably enrages critics on the left and right alike. In their treatment of President Trump as a boorish outlier, and a unique personal threat to the health of the Republic, the elites either revealed their implicit conspiracy against the president (according to populists of the right) or their own insularity (according to the populists of the left).
It is certainly true that the bipartisan resistance centered around McCain has registered more self-satisfaction than actual resistance. Still, on the same weekend official Washington was treating Trump as an outcast, Trump was demonstrating what he has done to earn this status. In a revealing weekend tweet, he castigated his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for allowing the Justice Department to indict a pair of House Republicans.
Trump’s latest declaration of corrupt intent puts a fine point on the question both groups of skeptics have tended to avoid. Right-wing Trump allies have defended his assault on the Department of Justice by picking apart the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, adopting (for the narrow purposes of defending Trump) a radically pro-civil-libertarian view of FISA warrants, or demanding to know why Trump’s subordinates are being charged with crimes other than collusion with Russia. On the left, some critics have mocked the idea that there is anything worthwhile in the bipartisan defense of democratic norms against Trump.
But Trump’s intention to politicize the Department of Justice frames in sharp detail the question they have largely elided. However one feels about the general merits of the Washington Establishment, here is a threat to a specific governing norm whose value is beyond dispute. Trump objects to the indictments of two House Republicans who have been caught in blatant illegality. Representative Chris Collins, the first House Republican to endorse him, was overheard boasting about making colleagues rich with his inside information. Representative Duncan Hunter not only systematically misappropriated public funds but was recorded in a series of damning emails. These are not marginal cases. Trump’s entire rationale for opposing the prosecutions is that they hurt his party.
And Trump has been repeatedly clear about his objective. He regularly demands that his attorney general protect his personal interests and open investigations into figures he dislikes. Trump tried to sell Sessions on the prospect that he would become a “hero” to the Republican base by locking up Hillary Clinton, and then berated him when he failed to do so. Trump’s lawyers have written a memo defending his prerogative to do so. “The President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director,” they argued, “he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction.”
Regardless of the law, there is nobody actually willing to defend such an arrangement on normative grounds. A system in which a president can order up investigations of the opposing party and quash investigations of his own would hand incumbents a weapon so powerful it would make democracy a sham. Vladimir Putin has not needed to cancel elections in order to cement his authority. His most important tool has been selective law enforcement, which has allowed him to court allies with the promise of riches and legal impunity, and to intimidate his critics with with ruinous threats to their reputation, fortunes and freedoms.
A Wall Street Journaleditorial earlier this year sneered, “we’re pleased to report that there hasn’t been a fascist coup in Washington.” It hasn’t been for lack of trying, or for lack of support from institutional Republican organs like the Journal. Indeed, despite a handful of criticisms, Republicans in Congress have largely refused to criticize Trump’s demands to control the DOJ.
Neither the law nor the Constitution can do much to stop Trump from fully corrupting the Justice Department. The only thing standing between American democracy and Trump’s vision of a Putin-like regime that terrorizes the opposition while nourishing an oligarchy of regime supporters is that much-mocked word: a norm. It is on this specific question, not some generalized cultural assessment of the Washington elite, that the struggle to defend democracy rests.
******************************************
The first step top getting our “Mussolini Wannabe” out of office, reestablishing “norms,” and recreating a functioning two-party system is to get to the polls and remove the GOP enablers, fellow travelers, cowards, and out ands out White Nationalists from office this fall, at all levels of Government. The grifters must go!
A new report from New American Economy (NAE) shows that immigrants in the City of Alexandria paid $364.6 million in taxes in 2016, including $262.4 million in federal taxes and $102.2 million in state and local taxes. The report was produced in partnership with the City of Alexandria Workforce Development Center and the Alexandria Economic Development Partnership.
In addition to their financial contributions, the new report, New Americans in Alexandria, shows the role that the immigrant population in Alexandria plays in the local labor force, as well as their contributions to the city’s recent population growth. Though they account for 28 percent of the city’s overall population, immigrants represent 32.3 percent the city’s working age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force. The report also shows that over half of the city’s population growth in between 2011 and 2016 is attributable to immigrants.
Foreign-born residents paid $364.6 million in taxes in the City of Alexandria in 2016. Immigrant households earned $1.4 billion in income in 2016. Of that, $262.4 million went to federal taxes and $102.2 million went to state and local taxes, leaving them with $998.8 million in spending power.
Immigrants were responsible for 52.0 percent of the total population growth in Alexandria between 2011 and 2016. Over those 5 years, the overall population in the city increased by 10.8 percent, while the immigrant population increased by 22.2 percent.
Despite making up 28.0 percent of the overall population, immigrants played an outsize role in the labor force in 2016. Foreign-born workers represented 32.3 percent of Alexandria’s working-age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force that year.
Immigrants are overrepresented among entrepreneurs in the city. Despite making up 28.0 percent of the population, immigrants accounted for 34.2 percent of all entrepreneurs in the city in 2016, generating $79.4 million in local business income.
Immigrants play a critical role in several key industries in the city, including in STEM fields. Foreign-born workers made up 62.2 percent of all workers in construction, 48.3 percent of all workers in hospitality and recreation, and 41.4 percent of all workers in healthcare. They also made up 21.4 percent of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers.
40 percent of immigrants over the age of 25 had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2016, and 19.2 percent had an advanced degree.
Over one third of immigrants in the city—36.3 percent, or over 15,000 individuals— were naturalized citizens in 2016.
Over one third—31.2 percent—of refugees aged 25 and above in the city held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2016. 10 percent held an advanced degree.
The US Refugee Resettlement Program — A Return to First Principles:
How Refugees Help to Define, Strengthen, and Revitalize the United States
Donald Kerwin
Center for Migration Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The US refugee resettlement program should be a source of immense national pride. The program has saved countless lives, put millions of impoverished persons on a path to work, self-sufficiency, and integration, and advanced US standing in the world. Its beneficiaries have included US leaders in science, medicine, business, the law, government, education, and the arts, as well as countless others who have strengthened the nation’s social fabric through their work, family, faith, and community commitments. Refugees embody the ideals of freedom, endurance, and self-sacrifice, and their presence closes the gap between US ideals and its practices. For these reasons, the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support for nearly 40 years.
Yet the current administration has taken aim at this program as part of a broader attack on legal immigration programs. It has treated refugees as a burden and a potential threat to our nation, rather than as a source of strength, renewal, and inspiration. In September 2017, it set an extremely low refugee admissions ceiling (45,000) for 2018, which it had no intention of meeting: the United States is on pace to resettle less than one-half of that number. It has also tightened special clearance procedures for refugees from mostly Muslim-majority states so that virtually none can enter; cynically slow-walked the interview, screening, and admissions processes; and decimated the community-based resettlement infrastructure built up over many decades (Miliband 2018). At a time of record levels of forced displacement in the world, the United States should model solidarity with refugees and exercise leadership in global refugee protection efforts (Francis 2018a, 102). Instead, the administration has put the United States on pace to resettle the lowest number of refugees in USRAP’s 38-year history, with possible further cuts in fiscal year (FY) 2019.
This report describes the myriad ways in which this program serves US interests and values. The program:
saves the lives of the world’s most vulnerable persons;
continues “America’s tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries” and shares the “responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression” (Reagan 1981);
promotes a “stable and moral world” (Helton 2002, 120);
reduces spontaneous, unregulated arrivals and encourages developing nations to remain engaged in refugee protection (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan 2017, 42-43); and
promotes cooperation from individuals, communities, and nations that are central to US military and counter-terrorism strategies.[1]
In that vein, the report describes the achievements, contributions, and integration outcomes of 1.1 million refugees who arrived in the United States between 1987 and 2016. It finds that:
the median household income of these refugees is $43,000;[2]
35 percent of refugee households have mortgages;
63 percent of refugees have US-born children;
40 percent are married to US citizens; and
67 percent have naturalized.
Comparing the 1.1 million refugees who arrived between 1987 and 2016 with non-refugees,[3] the foreign born, and the total US population, the report finds:
Refugees’ labor force participation (68 percent) and employment rates (64 percent) exceed those of the total US population (63 and 60 percent respectively).[4]
Large numbers of refugees (10 percent) are self-employed and, in this and other ways, job creators, compared to 9 percent for the total US population.
Refugees’ median personal income ($20,000) equals that of non-refugees and exceeds the income of the foreign born overall ($18,700).
Refugees are more likely to be skilled workers (38 percent) than non-refugees (33 percent) or the foreign born (35 percent).
Refugees are less likely to work in jobs that new immigrants fill at high rates, such as construction, restaurants and food service, landscaping, services to buildings and dwellings, crop production, and private households.
Refugees use food stamps and Medicaid at higher rates than non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population. However, their public benefit usage significantly declines over time and their integration, well-being, and US family ties increase.
Comparing refugee characteristics by time present in the United States — from the most recent arrivals (2007 to 2016), to arrivals between 1997 to 2006, to those with the longest tenure (1987 to 1996) — the report finds:
Refugees with the longest residence have integrated more fully than recent arrivals, as measured by households with mortgages (41 to 19 percent); English language proficiency (75 to 55 percent); naturalization rates (89 to 24 percent); college education (66 to 32 percent); labor force participation (68 to 61 percent); and employment (66 to 55 percent) and self-employment (14 to 4 percent).
Refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 have higher labor force participation and employment rates than refugees who arrived from 1987 to 1996.[5]
Refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 exceed the total US population, which consists mostly of the native-born, in median personal income ($28,000 to $23,000), homeownership (41 to 37 percent with a mortgage), percent above the poverty line (86 to 84 percent), access to a computer and the internet (82 to 75 percent), and health insurance (93 to 91 percent).
Comparing nationals — in 2000 and again in 2016 — from states formerly in the Soviet Union, who entered from 1987 to 1999, the report finds that:
median household income increased from $31,000 to $53,000;
median personal income nearly tripled, from $10,700 to $31,000;
the percent of households with a mortgage increased from 30 to 40 percent;
public benefit usage fell;
English language proficiency rose;
the percent with a college degree or some college increased (68 to 80 percent);
naturalization rates nearly doubled, from 47 to 89 percent;
marriage to US citizens rose from 33 to 51 percent; and
labor force participation rate (59 to 69 percent), employment (57 to 66 percent), self-employment (11 to 15 percent), and the rate of skilled workers (33 to 38 percent) all grew.
The report also finds that refugees bring linguistic diversity to the United States and, in this and other ways, increase the nation’s economic competitiveness and security.
In short, refugees become US citizens, homeowners, English speakers, workers, business owners, college educated, insured, and computer literate at high rates. These findings cover a large population of refugees comprised of all nationalities, not just particularly successful national groups.
Section I of the report describes the nation’s historic commitment to refugees and critiques the administration’s rationale for dismantling the resettlement program. Section II sets forth the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) methodology for selecting the refugee data used in this report. Section III discusses the resettlement, national origins, and years of arrival of the refugees in CMS’s sample. Section IV details the report’s main findings on the achievements, contributions, and integration of refugees over time. It compares the characteristics of refugees, non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population; and examines the progress of refugees — measured in 2000 and 2016 — that arrived from the former Soviet Union between 1987 and 1999. This section also references the growing literature on the US refugee program and on the economic and fiscal impacts of refugees. Section V discusses the important role of voluntary agencies in the resettlement process, focusing on the work of Catholic agencies in building community support for refugees and promoting their entrepreneurial initiatives. Section VI identifies the national interests served by the refugee program, recommends ways to address several of the program’s longstanding challenges, and urges the president, Congress, Americans with refugee roots, and other stakeholders to work to strengthen and expand the program.
[1] Brief for Retired Generals and Admirals of the US Armed Forces in Support of Respondents at 19-21, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 1 7-965 (Mar. 30, 2018)http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.11.
[2] This is less than the median household income of the non-refugee population ($45,000), the foreign born ($56,000), and the total US population ($52,800). However, most refugees enter the United States without income, assets, or English language proficiency, and they advance dramatically over time. This report shows, for example, that the median personal income of refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 actually exceeds that of the total US population.
[3] The Center for Migration Studies identified non-refugees by removing persons selected as refugees from the population of all foreign born that entered after 1986, by single year of entry. In each year of entry, it then randomly selected the same number as the number of refugees.
[4] The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of persons age 16 or over who are employed or seeking work, as opposed to out of the labor force entirely.
[5] The higher labor force participation and employment rates of refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 can likely be attributed to the older age of those who arrived from 1987 to 1996 (20 percent age 65 or over). Many of those who arrived in the 1987 to 1996 period had likely retired by 2016.
REGISTER FOR THIS FREE WEBINAR:
WEBINAR
The Contributions of Refugees to the Nation and the Importance of a Robust US Refugee Program
September 6, 2018, 1pm EDT
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)
President Trump has repeatedly promised to close the borders to stop undocumented migrants from taking American jobs, so far with only minimal success. Which shouldn’t be surprising. For a half-century, the government has been unable to stanch the flow of illegal migrants working for American companies because it continuously misdiagnoses the problem. Unless the government either holds employers responsible or grants undocumented workers legal rights, there will continue to be undocumented immigrants streaming across the border, no matter how harsh enforcement efforts are.
When we think of undocumented workers, we tend to think of farmworkers or those doing menial service jobs like hotel housekeeping. And yet undocumented workers have been foundational to the rise of our most vaunted hub of innovative capitalism: Silicon Valley.
If any industry should be automated, it would be the high-tech world of electronics. In 1984 the iconic Apple even touted its “Highly Automated Macintosh Manufacturing Facility,” bragging that “A Machine Builds Machines.” Yet Apple’s factory, like all the other electronic factories, was shockingly old-fashioned. There were more robots in Detroit’s auto factories than in Silicon Valley. The flexibility of electronics production in Silicon Valley, despite all the technical wizardry, came from workers not machines.
And while these companies employed many high-skilled, highly paid engineers, Silicon Valley became the tech hub of the world thanks to a very different set of workers. Unlike the postwar industries that created a middle class from union wages, electronics expanded in the 1970s and ’80s through low-cost, often subcontracted, often undocumented labor. Instead of self-aware robots or high-dollar professionals, it was women of color, mostly immigrants — hunched over tables with magnifying glasses, assembling parts sometimes on a factory line, sometimes on a kitchen table — who did the necessary but toxic work of semiconductor manufacturing. Many of the undocumented workers were from Mexico, while many of the documented ones were from there and Vietnam.
Consider Ampex, a leading audio manufacturer, whose 1980s assembly room looked like most in Silicon Valley: all women, and mostly women of color. Automation was not an option because the products changed too quickly to recoup the investment in machinery.
The tools these women used were hardly futuristic. In fact, they were one of the most ancient tools in existence — their fingernails. The women grew their nails long on each hand so that they could more easily maneuver the components onto the circuit boards. Tongs were an option, but fingernails worked better.
The high-end audio at Ampex was made possible by low-end subcontracting. In Quonset huts, temporary workers dropped off and collected subcontracted chemical processing that was too dangerous to be done by regular Ampex employees. The front and back doors of the huts were open, some lazily turning fans were on the ceiling, but otherwise there was no ventilation.
The workers stoked fires beneath vats of chemicals, some of which boiled. In the vats, the subcontracted workers dipped metals and printed circuits, which temps collected and returned to Ampex.
And this wasn’t even the bottom rung of the electronics industry. The bottom-rung of the electronics industry was not in a small factory or a Quonset hut, but a kitchen.
Investigators found that somewhere between 10 and 30 percent of electronics firms subcontracted to “home workers.” Like garment workers taking in sewing in the 1880s, electronics workers in the 1980s could assemble parts in their kitchen. A mother and her children gathered around a kitchen table assembling components for seven cents apiece. These little shops put together the boards used by big companies like Ampex.
The catch: the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) believed that as much as 25 percent of the Silicon Valley workforce (~200,000 people) was undocumented — which meant this thriving industry was routinely breaking the law. The INS tasked John Senko, an 18-year veteran, with opening the agency’s first office in San Jose and eliminating illegal migrant labor in Silicon Valley. Early raids yielded undocumented workers making between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour ($13.60 and $18.55 in 2018 dollars), which, in the lingering recession of the early 1980s, was good money. Americans out of work might not have wanted to be migrant farmworkers, but they did want factory jobs.
The INS encouraged the large companies to cooperate by offering them lenience for giving up their “illegal aliens.” At Circuit Assembly Corporation in San Jose, the INS asked for the names of its noncitizen employees. Of the 250 names, the company suspected that “20 or 30 of them could be using forged papers.” The actual number was 187.
But in a pattern that would repeat itself, and would reinforce the wrong incentive structures, the company received no sanctions or penalties because it cooperated. It replaced those employees with what Senko dubbed “legal workers,” while deporting the rest. The INS moved onto the next company.
This pattern, however, allowed companies to return to hiring undocumented workers once the heat was off. Papers were easy to forge, and employers had no reason to check them too closely. Senko and the INS were understaffed, growing to only a few dozen employees. And there was no real risk to breaking the law without any potential penalty for the company.
In addition to doing nothing to stanch the flow of undocumented workers, by targeting employees, not employers, the INS provoked a fierce backlash. Senko raided not just workplaces but neighborhoods. In Menlo Park, just near Stanford, INS agent blocked the streets, removed “Hispanic males” from cars and from homes, checking them for proof of citizenship. In Santa Cruz, the INS went door to door checking Hispanic citizenship.
These harsh tactics prompted pushback from local governments. In San Jose, officials fought against INS in the name of defending “chicano citizens” against harassment, passing a resolution against “the unwarranted disruption of the business community.” In December 1985, San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary” and directed its police and officials not to assist the INS in finding “law-abiding” but “undocumented” migrants.
This resistance forced INS agents to enforce the law more selectively. But reducing these broad sweeps actually exacerbated the root problem. It gave Silicon Valley corporations even more power over their undocumented workforce.
Businesses could selectively check green cards against an INS database, or simply hand over troublemakers. This power made it impossible for unions to organize the electronics factories. The spokesman for the International Association of Machinists explained that whenever they tried to organize, the company “threatened to have anyone who joined the union deported.”
So long as undocumented workers remained cheaper and willing to work in worse conditions than American employees, and the risk of employing undocumented labor was nonexistent, enforcement was doomed to fail.
For John Senko, his time in San Jose was “the worst three years of my life.” He came to believe that if he was actually successful in deporting undocumented workers from Silicon Valley “we’d have a revolution.” He preferred, he said, businesses to cooperate rather than to have to raid them, but that missed the point.
“This economy,” former INS head Leonel Castillo told a newspaper in 1985, “was built on the assumption and reality of a heavy influx of illegal labor.” Castillo was not just referring to the electronics industry but the entire economy of the American West.
And that basic reality remains the same today: countless American businesses in a wide variety of industries thrive solely because they can rely on undocumented employees who will work for less in harsher conditions. If we want to reduce competition for American workers from undocumented foreign workers, we must either truly hold employers accountable (which has never been done) or extend workplace rights to noncitizens. Our current system of punishing the undocumented themselves simply won’t stop the problem — no matter how harsh President Trump’s tactics. When some workers count and others don’t, employers will choose the workers that can work cheaper and more dangerously, which, in turn, makes the rest of our work, citizens or not, more precarious.
************************************************
Employer sanctions have now been in effect for more than three decades without effective enforcement. Fact is, they target U.s. employers, rather than their foreign workers. Therefore, not likely to be much “red meat” for the Trump racist base, particularly those who actually employ undocumented individuals. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Trump White Nationalist empire.
In all these cases, the administration has pointed to a national security or economic justification: Trump says the travel ban targeted countries the Obama administration deemed security risks, that instead of helping refugees the US should help native-born Americans, and that immigrants bring crime. If you buy into this view, the fact that all these moves have led to the prosecuting, deporting, and banning of non-white people is just a side effect of putting America first. But it’s increasingly obvious that for some in charge of making and selling these policies, those justifications are just a fig leaf for an aggressive attempt to make America white again.
This week, The Atlantic uncovered emails from Department of Homeland official Ian M. Smith showing that he was friendly with white nationalists in DC. Smith subsequently resigned, but the Washington Post reported that as an immigration policy analyst he had worked on some of the administration’s most high-profile and controversial initiatives, including refugees and penalizing immigrants who used public assistance. This follows the resignation of a Trump speechwriter who attended a conference with white nationalist and news that Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, had the publisher of a white nationalist website as a guest at his birthday party. Last month, the chairperson of the Republican Party of Spokane, Washington, resigned after inviting a white nationalist to speak at a gathering. Pro-Confederacy candidate Corey Stewart won a GOP Senate primary in Virginia.
Racist is such a powerful word that the press routinely tiptoes around it—”White anxiety finds a home at Fox News” was a euphemistic headline atop an August CNN piece about Carlson and Ingraham. The argument against deploying the word is that it seems to peer into a person’s heart. Can we definitively say that another person’s words were motivated by raw prejudice and not economic anxiety, or whatever? The charge of racism is always met by blanket denials, no matter how contradictory those denials seem. After former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke praised Ingraham, the host said that her monologue “had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but rather a shared goal of keeping America safe and her citizens safe and prosperous.”
Avoiding the R-word is often a form of political correctness, a way for people who disagree strongly on issues like immigration to have a conversation without descending into mutual recrimination and name-calling. It’s often unproductive to accuse people of racism—if a voter is genuinely worried that immigrants will take his job, people who favor more immigration have more to gain by trying to convince him he’s mistaken than by calling him out as a deplorable. And as a rule of thumb we should assume the opposition is acting in good faith, that the other side is not concealing some awful ulterior motive. Surely many people who support Trump’s policies are not outright racists.
But it’s not a coincidence that a significant chunk of anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably racist, or that administration officials continually find themselves rubbing elbows with white nationalists, or that Trump is simultaneously pushing policies that target immigrants and saying things that you wouldn’t hesitate to call racist if you heard them at a bar. Trump’s aides would no doubt bristle at the suggestion that they are white nationalists. I’m sure the vast majority are not on email chains that contain jokes about dinner parties being “judenfrei,” as Smith was. But it’s impossible to deny that they aren’t allied with white nationalists on a very basic level.
Nothing will stop him from discarding the dog whistle and grabbing a bullhorn in his racist tweets and shouts.
Whatever happens to Donald Trump, however long it takes before he’s out of office, there’s one area where it will be hard to stop the spread of his poisonous politics: his stoking of racial hatred.
Trump and Republicans keep trying to turn the murder of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts, allegedly done by an immigrant who may have been in the United States illegally, into a campaign issue, trying further to stir up anger and raise fears about immigrants among Trump’s base. But they conveniently ignore the murder of 18-year-old Nia Wilson on a BART train in Oakland, California, allegedly committed by a white supremacist.
It’s not hard to figure out their reasoning: Tibbetts was white, and her accused killer is Latino. Wilson was African-American, and her accused killer is white. Crimes by “others” are by definition bad and scary, to a racist’s way of thinking. Crimes by whites must be a sign of mental illness, right?
Multiple reports and analyses show that the number of hate crimes against minorities have risen since Trump became president, and that the number started rising the day after the election in 2016. “There were more reported hate crimes on Nov. 9 than any other day in 2016, and the daily number of such incidents exceeded the level on Election Day for the next 10 days,” says a report from The Washington Post.
Even the increase in hate crime numbers is no doubt understated, because hate crimes are always underreported. But they have been rising all over the country, in cities, in small towns, and on college campuses, ever since Trump’s election. Victims encompass all minorities: African-American, Latino, Muslim, LGBT, Asian-American, and immigrants of multiple nationalities. Except, of course, for immigrants from Western European countries like Norway. Immigrants from “shithole countries” are obviously still fair game.
Over the last decade, extremists committed 387 murders in the United States, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League. Of those, 71 percent were done by white supremacists and other right-wing extremists. Islamic extremists were responsible for only 26 percent.
When do hate crimes occur? There’s no shortage of bigoted remarks and bombastic insults at his campaign rallies, often rousing his supporters into shouts against whatever minority group he currently has in his cross hairs, whether that’s the media, immigrants, Muslims, or whatever his outrage du jour.
But often, says one study, hate crimes occur right after a bigoted Trump tweet.
An online paper published on the Social Science Research Network found a pattern of an increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes after particularly virulent anti-Muslim tweets. From the paper’s abstract:
We show that the rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes since Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has been concentrated in counties with high Twitter usage. Consistent with a role for social media, Trump’s Tweets on Islam-related topics are highly correlated with anti-Muslim hate crime after, but not before the start of his presidential campaign.
A commentary on the study in Scientific American cautioned that the link between Trump tweets and anti-Muslim hate crimes is correlational and not necessarily causal. Still, the researchers “point out that their findings are consistent with the idea that Trump’s presidency has made it more socially acceptable for many people to express prejudicial or hateful views that they already possessed prior to his election.”
Making such prejudicial and hateful views “socially acceptable” is the crux of the problem. We all know that racism exists and always has existed. With Trump’s ascendancy, people with those racist views have ripped away the layer of social responsibility, giving them (in their own eyes) permission to express racism openly, with little fear of repercussion. The abundance of cell phone videos distributed on social media showing insults, harassment, arrests, attacks, and even some killings illustrates the fact that harassment toward people who are merely #LivingWhileBlack is an everyday occurrence.
Though Trump and Fox News fearmonger Tucker Carlson will always be able to find inflammatory cases of young white women killed by sinister brown men, studies overwhelmingly show that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, commit crime at far lower rates than do native-born citizens. As the percentage of foreign-born increased in the United States from 7 percent to 13 percent between 1990 and 2013, violent crime rates fell 48 percent.
Politically, though, what matters is the first statistic — the increase in foreign-born. […]
The always fraught challenge of incorporating this generation of immigrants — assimilating, learning from, being enriched by — will be that much harder and take that much longer. It will happen; most of those people are not going away, no matter how much Trump dreams of deportation, and the country’s adaptive genius will be stronger than the Trump poison.
But the poison will linger. And when history considers how the Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans acquiesced to Trump’s many depredations, it will be their failure to stand up for respect and tolerance between one human being and another that will be judged most harshly.
Since he stepped on the political stage, Donald Trump has electrified the radical right. Through his words and actions, he continues to deliver for what he clearly sees as his core constituency. As a consequence, we’ve seen a rise in hate crimes, street violence and large public actions organized by white supremacist groups that have been further emboldened by the president’s statements about “shithole countries” and his policies targeting refugees and immigrants of color.
Nothing will stop Trump from exploiting the racial and ethnic fear and hatred he has espoused for decades and brought out into the open when he descended that escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015, spouting nonsense about Mexico sending rapists and drug dealers to the U.S. Nothing will stop his base from cheering about a nonsensical wall that will never be built (and Mexico certainly will never pay for). Nothing will stop him from discarding the dog whistle and grabbing a bullhorn in his racist tweets and shouts.
Ultimately, that will be Donald Trump’s legacy: MARA—Make America Racist Again
******************************
White Nationalist racism is at the core of the Trump/Sessions/Miller immigration agenda. I don’t see how one can push that agenda while denying its underlying ugly intent.
Backlogs in U.S. immigration courts are up 38 percent since Trump took office
Backlogs in U.S. immigration courts are up 38 percent since Trump took office, with the biggest increases in Maryland, Massachusetts and Georgia
U.S. immigration courts have had a 38 percent increase in case backlog since President Trump took office
Nationwide, there are 746,049 pending cases before 351 immigration judges, up from 542,411 in January 2017
The Department of Justice has recently hired 23 new judges and streamlined the process for hiring judges, but many experts say other Trump administration policy changes continue to exacerbate the system
PUBLISHED: 13:43 EDT, 30 August 2018 | UPDATED: 10:25 EDT, 31 August 2018
The U.S. immigration court system is straining to accommodate cases, with a 38 percent increase in the backlog since President Trump took office, according to a new analysis of government data.
Nationwide, there were 746,049 pending cases as of July 31 – up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
‘It’s a fairly remarkable increase – nearly 40 percent in 18 months,’ former immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt told DailyMail.com. ‘It shows that the policies being followed by this administration are making things worse rather than better.’
The increase in caseload has occurred unevenly, with 10 states responsible for the majority of the growth in backlogged cases.
+3
While not every state has immigration court, immigrants living in each state have cases before an immigration judge. This map illustrates where people with pending immigration cases are living
Maryland had the highest increase (96 percent), with 33,384 backlogged cases as of July 31, compared to 17,074 at the end of January 2017.
Massachusetts followed, with a 76 percent increase to 26,782 cases, compared to 15,208 cases 18 months earlier.
No sane person would look at this and think that throwing more cases into this system would be a good idea. -Former immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt
Georgia had the third highest increase at 67 percent (rising to 23,249 cases from 13,955), followed by Florida with a 57 percent increase (up to 50,544 pending cases from 32,233). California had a 48 percent increase and the highest overall backlog of any state with 140,676 unresolved cases, up from 95,252.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has sought to address the problem through a number of steps, however many experts say changes under the Trump administration are exacerbating the backlog.
‘No sane person would look at this and think that throwing more cases into this system would be a good idea,’ Wickham Schmidt said.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, announced earlier this month that it has hired 23 new immigration judges in an effort to take on the backlog and to offset the retirement of judges.
That change brings the total number of immigration judges to 351, with Department of Justice officials expecting to add another 75 in the fall.
Sessions says he has also introduced a ‘streamlined’ approach for hiring judges – a historically lengthy process – to bring the average hiring time down to 266 days, compared from 742 days in 2017, according to Department of Justice data.
In addition, the DOJ has introduced a new quota that would require immigration judges to close 700 cases a year.
Quotas ‘would threaten the integrity and independence of the court and potentially increase the court’s backlog,’ according to the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union representing the judges.
+3
Ten states were responsible for a majority of the increase in case backlogs within U.S. immigration courts since President Trump took office
Despite those efforts, experts say that a number of policy changes under the Trump administration continue to compound the backlog and more recent actions could worsen the situation in years to come.
‘The problem is basic policy decisions in managing the workload,’ said Susan B. Long, co-director of TRAC, which published the analysis. ‘Historically backlogs have been rising for a very long time, so this is not a new problem, but they have accelerated since President Trump assumed office.’
Throwing a couple hundred thousand cases back into an already overloaded system is obviously going to have an impact. -Former immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase
Under the current administration, the DOJ has ended an Obama-era practice that gave the government prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to prioritize certain cases and deprioritize others by taking them off the docket indefinitely.
For example, officials could deprioritize cases in which an immigrant has been living in the country for many years without committing any crimes, who is also paying taxes and has close relatives who are U.S. citizens.
The goal was to allow the DOJ to focus more time and energy prosecuting immigrants who were convicted of other crimes, engaged in gang activity, or who had just crossed the border.
Long told DailyMail.com that ‘tens of thousands’ of cases could be reintroduced to the docket now that prosecutorial discretion has been eliminated.
Sessions also issued a decision earlier this year that takes away the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases. Similar to prosecutorial discretion, administrative closures allowed a judge to close low-priority cases to make room on the docket for more serious offenses.
+3
The backlog of immigration cases has risen steadily over the past decade
From Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2017, 215,285 cases were administratively closed, according to Sessions’ decision.
Now those cases are being added back to the docket, former Immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase told DailyMail.com.
‘Throwing a couple hundred thousand cases back into an already overloaded system is obviously going to have an impact,’ he said.
In addition, the Trump administration is planning to terminate Temporary Protected Status for people from El Salvador in September 2019 and Haiti in July 2019. TPS is a designation for people from certain countries for whom it would be unsafe or not feasible for them to return home. Chase said putting an end to the program will add to the backlog in the future.
Long said that the increase in immigration crackdowns at workplaces and at the Southern U.S. border are primarily being handled by criminal courts, so those aren’t having a huge impact on the backlog.
In many cases simple case ‘churn’ – when cases are postponed because a judge isn’t available or unable to get to all scheduled cases in a day – is the cause of backlog, Long said.
****************************************
Susan Long and Jeffrey have hit the nail on the head. Sessions has replaced a nascent but very promising prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) system instituted by DHS toward the end of the Obama Administration with more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” “Churning,” as used by Susan is another term for “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” or “ADR” for short.
The “spiggot” of Immigration Court cases is under the sole control of ICE. No court reform is likely to succeed unless it includes an element of responsible and prioritized use of court time — the process followed by every other law enforcement agency in America that I’m aware of except ICE. Sessions — and let’s be honest, he’s running both immigration enforcement through DHS and the courts at DOJ despite the glaring conflict of interest — is moving in exactly the opposite direction with his bone-headed “zero tolerance” and “deport ’em all” pronouncements.
By 1) eliminating policies favoring the prudent use of court time; 2) removing the authority of Immigration Judges to close cases that could be better handled by USCIS off the courts’ active dockets; 3) disrupting settled asylum law and discouraging ICE from stipulating or otherwise settling cases, making most cases “full three-hour merits hearings;” and 4) overemphasizing detention, thereby shifting judicial resources from non-detained courts where all of the backlog exists to detained courts, Sessions has virtually guaranteed a continued growth in backlog.
The most telling fact: even with dozens more Immigration Judges on the bench than during any time in the Obama Administration, and all sorts of sophomoric “just pedal faster, shame and blame” invectives directed at the Immigration Judges themselves, as well as embattled private attorneys, the Trump Administration has never been able to complete more Immigration Court cases than it has docketed. That’s the definition of an out of control backlog.
Another sobering stat: Assuming that the 350 Immigration Judges now on duty worked on nothing but backlog — no new cases — and that each of them achieved their “quota” of 700 cases annually, it would take until nearly 2022 just to complete all of the cases in the current backlog!
No, the answer isn’t to blame the victims: the migrants exercising the legal rights to which they are entitled, the attorneys (many serving pro bono) trying to help them, and the beleaguered judges themselves and their overwhelmed court staff.
The answer is in the exercise of some prosecutorial discretion by the DHS to get “low priority” individuals and cases off the docket.At some point, that must be combined with a legislative program that allows those undocumented individuals with clean records, equities, and who are effectively part of and important contributors to our society to remain in some type of legal status. In my view, that should involve a path to a green card. But, even a more limited, renewable “TPS-type” status that allowed individuals to reside, work, study, and pay taxes in the US would be a big step in the right direction.
Not going to happen under Trump & Sessions? Yeah, that’s likely true. All the more reason to replace them with non-White Nationalists capable of recognizing the many important contributions of all kinds of migrants and governing wisely in the overall public interest.
President Trump’s bigoted hatred of Latino immigrants has been clear from the beginning. Now his administration is aggressively persecuting Latino citizens as well.
It is hard to be shocked anymore, given the daily outrages committed by Trump and his minions, but a report Thursday by The Post was jaw-dropping: In the borderlands of southern Texas, the State Department is denying passports to hundreds and perhaps thousands of men and women who have official birth certificates demonstrating they were born in the United States.
In some cases, valid passports have been confiscated and revoked, their holders stranded in Mexico, unable to come home. In other cases, people have been arrested, sent to detention centers and slated for deportation. Imagine how they and their American families must feel — and how their distress must make Trump and his fellow xenophobes feel warm inside.
Denial of passports effectively renders the victims stateless — meaning they cannot travel outside the country, because they would not be readmitted — and potentially vulnerable to being deported. Again, these are people who have government-issued birth certificates, long accepted as gold-standard proof of citizenship. The Trump administration simply doesn’t see Latinos as full-fledged Americans.
The Post quoted a 40-year-old man named Juan — he didn’t want his last name used for fear of being targeted — who has a birth certificate stating he was born in the Texas border city of Brownsville. He served his country for three years in the U.S. Army, then was a cadet in the Border Patrol, and now works as a Texas state prison guard. But when he applied to renew his passport this year, the State Department responded with a letter saying it didn’t believe he was a citizen.
It is important to understand that for Americans who live along the border, a passport is a necessity. People flow back and forth across the Rio Grande all the time to work, make business deals, see family or perhaps just try out a trendy new restaurant. The border is not like the Berlin Wall, though evidently Trump would like it to be.
There is a backstory: In the 1990s, some Texas midwives admitted accepting bribes to falsely claim that some Mexican infants were born in the United States. These same midwives, however, also delivered many more Latino babies, at least thousands, who were legitimately born in the United States. From official records, it is impossible to tell the difference.
The Trump administration appears to be denying passports simply because the applicant is Latino, was born in southern Texas and was delivered by a midwife — something the federal government explicitly promised not to do in a 2009 court settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union.
The administration claims there has been no change in policy. But The Post quoted immigration lawyers who say there has been a dramatic surge in passport denials.
In Juan’s case, the State Department demanded he produce documents including proof of his mother’s prenatal care in the United States, his baptismal certificate and rental agreements from when he was an infant. He managed to find some of this obscure material — and yet his passport application was denied a second time.
A military veteran who served his country was told that it isn’t his country after all.
Think how you would feel if this nightmare were happening to you. Like everyone else, you have no memory of the details of your birth. You know only what your parents have told you and what the official records say, all of which is almost surely true. Suddenly, because of your Latino heritage, your core identity is challenged and your right to live in the United States is threatened.
If the government had specific evidence that an individual’s birth certificate was falsified, then we could have a debate about the right thing to do. But this administration is assuming that a person of a certain ethnicity, recorded as being born in a certain part of the country and meeting other unspecified criteria, is de facto not a citizen — and has the burden of proving otherwise.
At this point, the Trump administration has the burden of proving this is anything other than vile, unadulterated racism.
Trump launched his presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. His administration cruelly separated nearly 3,000 migrant children from their families and seeks to make their parents ineligible for asylum. His clear message to would-be Latino immigrants is: No admission.
And now, an equally blunt message for lifelong Latino citizens: Go away.
********************************************
We have a racist, White Nationalist regime. What does that say about those who continue to support its toxic policies and the Liar-in-Chief?
GET OUT THE VOTE IN NOVEMBER! TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THEIR ENABLERS! START HOLDING TRUMP, SESSIONS, AND THE OTHER REGIME AUTOCRATS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL, IMMORAL, AND DIVISIVE POLICIES!
‘Suicide,’ ‘catastrophe’: Nicaraguans in US terrified of looming end of protections
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Cassandra has lived and worked in the US over 20 years. Threats to her life have been made to her family and friends back in Nicaragua. It would be “suicide” to move back, she says.
But the Trump administration says she and thousands of other immigrants like her must do so by January.
On Jan. 5, roughly 5,300 Nicaraguans who have lived in the US since at least that date in 1999 will lose their protected status. If they have no other immigration status in the US, they will be forced to either return to the country or risk living in the US illegally.
The decision to end temporary protected status for Nicaraguans last November was overshadowed by similar Trump administration decisions to end such protections for hundreds of thousands more immigrants from neighbors Honduras and El Salvador. Nationals of Nicaragua received the shortest time frame of any of those TPS recipients to get their affairs together: 12 months.
But since that decision was made, Nicaragua has plunged into violence and political unrest, with at least 322 people dying there since mid-April, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States. By the White House’s own count, the toll is more than 350. The UN Refugee Agency has put out guidance to its member countries asking them to allow Nicaraguans to enter and to apply for asylum once there.
The situation is bad enough that the Trump administration sanctioned three Nicaraguan officials in July for human rights abuses, saying President Daniel Ortega and his vice president “are ultimately responsible for the pro-government parapolice that have brutalized their own people.”
In light of the violence, a bipartisan group of seven bipartisan lawmakers wrote to President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in late July asking the President to either reconsider ending temporary protected status for Nicaraguans or to designate a new status for them.
“It would be, frankly, I think, unacceptable to then send folks back to that same place that we’re sanctioning,” Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, one of those who signed the letter, told CNN. “It’s a barbaric regime that’s literally murdering people in the streets. … It would be a catastrophe, and it’s one that can be avoided.”
Diaz-Balart said he has not gotten a response from the administration to the letter, though he remains hopeful it will reverse course.
The Department of Homeland Security ignored repeated requests for comment from CNN about whether it’s considering extending further protections to Nicaraguans.
Hundreds of immigrant kids remain separated from parents
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Hundreds of children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border remain separated from their parents, including 497 in government custody, according to a new court filing Thursday.
The figure includes 22 children under the age of five still in government care. Six of those are 4 years old or younger whose parents were deported without them.
A total of 1,937 children have been reunified with parents, up only 14 from last week.
The numbers have changed only slightly from last week, as the court filing from the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union case describes a slow and laborious process to try to connect the families that have been separated.
It remains unclear exactly how many parents were deported without their children, though it’s in the hundreds. By the government’s latest count, there are 322 deported parents who have children still in custody.
But the ACLU, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of separated parents, says the administration has previously given it a list of deported parents that includes 70 additional cases. The administration said, according to the ACLU, that some of the discrepancy is due to kids being released from care. It’s not clear what will happen to those families.
US District Judge Dana Sabraw will hold a status hearing on the case Friday.
So, we send good folks who have been contributing to our economy and society back to likely harm at the hands of the repressive leftist Government of Nicaragua basically because they are Latinos. Of course, almost all of them have very plausible asylum, withholding, CAT, or cancellation of removal claims. So, more than 5,000 cases will needlessly be thrown back into our already overwhelmed Immigration Court system. No wonder the backlog continues to mushroom under Sessions’s White Nationalist policies! Racist-driven policies always come at a high cost!
In the meantime, Sessions continues publicly to thumb his nose at Federal Judges, while making less than impressive efforts to comply with their lawful orders. And, families and children continue to suffer from Sessions’s White Nationalist agenda.
The main reason that Mollie Tibbetts’s horrible killing has received so much attention is racism. Tibbetts’s accused murderer is a Mexican immigrant, and large segments of the conservative media, including talk radio and Fox News, like to call attention to crimes committed by people with dark skin. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.
You’ll notice the pattern if you spend any time watching or listening to these media sources. The pattern becomes especially clear when they descend into falsehoods.
Just look at the made-up story that Fox promoted last week about land seizures in South Africa, which led to a false tweet from President Trump about “the large-scale killing of farmers.” Or look at Lou Dobbs’s long history of telling on-air lies about immigrants (despite their comparatively low crime rates). Dobbs, other right-wing hosts and Trump have no such history of making up stories about crimes committed by white people.
I don’t think it’s possible to have an honest conversation about the Tibbetts debate without acknowledging the role that race plays. But I also think that David A. French’s piece in National Review is worth reading, especially for progressives.
French starts the piece by acknowledging the role of racism. That’s not his focus, though. His goal, instead, is to persuade readers that race is not the sole reason that the Tibbetts case resonates with so many people.
“There are reasons why illegal-immigrant crime can carry a poignant punch among people of good will,” French writes. “The murderer wasn’t supposed to be here. I’m reminded of the pain that people feel when, for example, they find out (in different crimes) that the police didn’t follow up on a lead or a prisoner was wrongly released on parole. The feeling is palpable.”
Imagine, for example, that you heard the killer in a mass shooting had been able to purchase a gun illegally, because of a failure in the background-check system. Wouldn’t that heighten your sense of injustice about the crime? For most of us, the answer is yes. “The official failure magnifies the personal injustice,” as French argues.
We live in a society that is supposed to be governed by laws. When they are not followed or enforced, many people are bothered. And they are right to be. Society functions better when its rules mean something.
I’m outraged by the racism that the many immigrants face, by the lies told about them and by the abuses that the Trump administration is committing against them. None of it is defensible, whether the immigrants arrived here legally or illegally.
But once the disaster of the Trump presidency has passed, the United States really should rewrite its immigration laws with the goal of reducing illegal immigration (as Barack Obama and John McCain, among many other politicians, have advocated over the years). Toothless laws undermine people’s faith in their government — and create all kinds of kindling for mistrust and anger.
Good to have Leonhardt back again! He actually presents a fairly sane “center left” view of the world. While he was on vacation, in an attempt to expose us sheltered NYT readers to the “world of the right” one of his “fill-ins” was the shameless Trump apologist Christopher Buskirk. While Leonhardt declared the “great experiment in broadening horizons” a smashing success, I beg to differ.
For about a week, Buskirk regaled us with condescending essays about why everybody in America should get with the program and warm up to the great benefits of having a racist, White Supremacist, xenophobic, chronic liar, ignorant, bullying, authoritarian, immoral, incompetent, climate change denying, crook, who was elected by a minority of voters, as President. The low point was his totally offensive attempt to exploit the Tibbetts tragedy by spewing the exact racist restrictionist nonsense that Leonhardt exposes and critiques.
To be honest, I know what drives Trump voters. While I would welcome them to the side of the “good guys,” and I certainly think that their genuine problems and issues should be addressed under “good government,” I don’t have too much hope that anybody who still supports Trump is “reachable.”
So, the real task isn’t to understand what weird or perverse things go in the minds of Trump’s hard-core “base.” No, it’s to get the majority of folks who don’t support Trump and his vision of a White Nationalist authoritarian kleptocracy to the polls to throw him and his enablers out before it’s too late for all of us (including his tone-deaf supporters — sometimes you have to have folks from themselves, even if they don’t want to be saved). Arrogant, disingenuous, pseudo-intellectuals like Buskirk are part of the problem, not the solution.
Moving on, I think that Mollie Tibbetts was an amazing person with so very much to offer the world. Her death is a horrible tragedy for her family and the rest of us. I deeply admire and am grateful for the way in which her father and the rest of her family have honored her kind, generous, and loving spirit by resisting the attempts of the racist right to make her a “cause celeb” for hatred and racial bigotry.
I agree with Leonhardt that we all would be better off if we solved the issues surrounding undocumented immigration. The answer is actually fairly straightforward: more properly screened legal immigrants to meet the realistic market needs of American employers and to satisfy our legal obligations to those who are persecuted. That would reduce undocumented immigration and allow DHS to concentrate on real criminals and those who come outside the more generous system. That’s likely to be a much lesser number than we have now.
Still, no system is capable of screening out all of those who might prove to be “bad actors” in the future, particularly where there is no past record of problems to go upon. However, to continue or “double down on” our current, overly restrictive, system is merely to guarantee that more and more individuals will be in the United States without the proper pre-screening and identification necessary to run an orderly system. America was built by immigrants (that’s all of us, except Native Americans), prospered because of them, and still needs them in large numbers to move forward into the future. That’s why the White Nationalist restrictionist proposals being pushed by Trump and his cohorts are not only stupid and immoral, but are ultimately doomed to failure.
C. Ryan Barber reports for the National Law Journal:
Judge Who Forced Feds to ‘Turn That Plane Around’ Blocks Another Deportation
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan this month lambasted federal officials for the unauthorized removal of a woman and her daughter while their emergency court challenge was unfolding in Washington, D.C.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. May 27, 2009. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to depart a pregnant Honduran woman as she seeks asylum in the United States, two weeks after demanding that the government turn around a plane that had taken a mother and daughter to El Salvador amid their emergency court appeal challenging removal.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted a temporary stay preventing the Honduran woman’s deportation following a hearing on her challenge to the administration’s decision to make it all but impossible for asylum seekers to gain entry into the United States by citing fears of domestic abuse or gang violence.
In court papers filed earlier this week, the Honduran woman’s lawyers—a team from Jones Day—said she fled her home country “after her partner beat her, raped her, and threatened to kill her and their unborn child.” The woman, suing under the pseudonym “Zelda,” is currently being held at a Texas detention center.
“Zelda is challenging a new policy that unlawfully deprives her of her right to seek humanitarian protection from this escalating pattern of persecution,” the woman’s lawyers wrote in a complaint filed Wednesday. The immigrant is represented pro bono by Jones Day partner Julie McEvoy, associate Courtney Burks and of counsel Erin McGinley.
At Thursday’s court hearing, McGinley said her client’s deportation was imminent absent an order from the judge blocking such a move. “Our concern today,” McGinley said, “is that our client may be deported in a matter of hours.”
U.S. Justice Department lawyers on Wednesday filed papers opposing any temporary stay from deportation. A Justice Department lawyer, Erez Reuveni, argued Thursday that the Honduran woman lacked standing to challenge the Justice Department’s new immigration policy, which makes it harder for immigrants seeking asylum to argue fears of domestic violence and gang violence.
After granting the stay preventing the Honduran woman’s deportation, Sullivan made clear he had not forgotten the events of two weeks ago, when he learned in court that the government had deported a mother and daughter while their emergency challenge to deportation was unfolding.
“Somebody … seeking justice in a United States court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her? It’s outrageous,” Sullivan said at the Aug. 9 hearing. “Turn that plane around and bring those people back to the United States.”
Sullivan on Thursday urged Reuveni to alert immigration authorities to his order. Reuveni said he would inform those authorities, adding that he hoped there would not be a recurrence of the issue that arose two weeks earlier.
“It’s got to be more than hopeful,” Sullivan told Reuveni in court Thursday. Reuveni said he could, in the moment, speak for himself and the Justice Department, but not the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“I cannot speak for ICE until I get on the phone with them and say this is what you need to do immediately,” Reuveni said.
Sullivan said he appreciated Reuveni’s “professionalism” and his efforts to “undo the wrong” that had been done to the Salvadoran mother and daughter earlier this month.
Stressing the need for a stay against Zelda’s deportation, McGinley said at Thursday’s hearing: “To be blunt, if she’s killed, there’s no remedy, your honor.” She added: “No remedy at all.”
****************************************
When individuals have access to high quality counsel like Jones Day, the courts pay more attention. That’s why Sessions & co. are working overtime to insure that individuals are hustled though the system without any meaningful access to counsel and, perhaps most outrageously, by excluding counsel from participation in the largely rigged “credible fear review process” before the Immigration Court. This isn’t justice; it isn’t even a parody of justice. It’s something out of a Kafka novel.
No wonder the Sessions-infused DOJ attorneys don’t want any real court to take a look at this abusive and indefensible removal of individuals with serious claims to relief without consideration by a fair and impartial adjudicator operating under the Constitution and our Refugee Act rather than “Sessions’s law.”
Judge Sullivan actually has an opportunity to put an end to this mockery of American justice by halting all removals of asylum seekers until at least a semblance of Due Process is restored to the system. The only question is whether he will do it! The odds are against it; but, with folks like Jones Day arguing in behalf of the unfairly condemned, the chances of halting the “Sessions Death Train” have never been better!
(Full Disclosure: I am a former partner at Jones Day. I’ve never been prouder of my former firm’s efforts to protect the American justice system and vindicate the rights of the most vulnerable among us. Congrats and appreciation to Jones Day Managing Partner Steve Brogan, Global Pro Bono Coordinator Laura Tuell, Partner Julie McEvoy, Of Counsel Erin McGinley, and everyone else involved in this amazing and much needed effort!)
In July, I left my wife and two little girls and traveled from Denver to Dilley, Texas, to join a group of volunteers helping migrant women in detention file claims for asylum. I am not a lawyer, but I speak Spanish and have a background in social work. Our task was to help the women prepare for interviews with asylum officers or to prepare requests for new interviews.
The women I worked with at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley had been separated from their children for up to two and a half months because of a policy instituted by the Trump administration in April 2018, under which families were targeted for detention and separation in an attempt to dissuade others from embarking on similar journeys. Although the separations have stopped because of the resulting public outcry, hundreds of families have not been reunited (including more than 20 children under 5), families continue to be detained at higher rates than adults crossing the border alone, and the trauma inflicted on the women and children by our government will have lifelong consequences.
To be clear, this is a policy of deliberately tormenting women and children so that other women and children won’t try to escape life-threatening conditions by coming to the United States for asylum. I joined this effort because I felt compelled to do something to respond to the humanitarian crisis created by unjust policies that serve no purpose other than to punish people for being poor and female ― for having the audacity to be born in a “shithole country” and not stay there.
I traveled with a group of amazing women gathered by Carolina, a powerhouse immigration lawyer and artist from Brooklyn. My fellow volunteers were mostly Latinas or women whose histories connected them deeply to this work. Through this experience, we became a tight-knit community, gathering each night to process our experiences and try to steel ourselves for the next day. Working 12-hour shifts alongside us were two nuns in their late 70s, and it was one of them who best summed up the experience as we entered the facility one morning. “What is happening here,” she said, “makes me question the existence of God.”
It was a nun who best summed up the experience as we entered the facility one morning. ‘What is happening here,’ she said, ‘makes me question the existence of God.’
I am still in awe of the resilience I witnessed. Many of the women I met had gone for more than two weeks without even knowing where their children were. Most had been raped, tormented, threatened or beaten (and in many cases, all of the above) in their countries (predominantly Honduras and Guatemala). They came here seeking refuge from unspeakable horrors, following the internationally recognized process for seeking asylum. For their “crime,” they were incarcerated with hundreds of other women and children in la hielera (“the freezer,” cold concrete cells with no privacy where families sleep on the floor with nothing more than sheets of Mylar to cover them) or la perrera (“the dog kennel,” where people live in chain link cages). Their children were ripped from their arms, they were taunted, kicked, sprayed with water, fed frozen food and denied medical care. Yet the women I encountered were the lucky ones, because they had survived their first test of will in this country.
Woman after woman described the same scene: During their separation from their children ― before they learned of their whereabouts or even whether they were safe ― the women were herded into a room where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials handed them papers. “Sign this,” they were told, “and you can see your children again.” The papers were legal documents with which the women would be renouncing their claims to asylum and agreeing to self-deport. Those who signed were deported immediately, often without their children. Those who refused to sign were given sham credible-fear interviews (the first step in the asylum process), for which they were not prepared or even informed of asylum criteria.
The women were distraught, not knowing what ICE had done with their children or whether they would see them again. Their interviews were conducted over the phone, with an interpreter also on the line. The asylum officer would ask a series of canned questions, and often the women could reply only, “Where is my child? What have you done with my child?” or would begin to give an answer, only to be cut off midsentence. Not surprisingly, almost all of them got negative results — exactly the outcome this policy was designed to produce. Still, these women persisted.
After a court battle, my clients were reunited with their children and were fortunate enough to have access to free legal representation (many do not) through the CARA Pro Bono Project. The women arrived looking shell-shocked, tired, determined. Some of their children clung to them, afraid to be apart even for a few minutes, making it very hard for the women to recount their experiences, which often included sexual violence, death threats and domestic abuse. Other children stared into space or slept on plastic chairs, exhausted from sleepless nights and nightmares. Still others ran manically around the legal visitation trailer. But some of the children showed incredible resilience, smiling up at us, showing off the few English words they knew, drawing pictures of mountains, rivers, neat little houses. They requested stickers or coloring pages, made bracelets out of paper clips. We were not allowed to give them anything ― no treats or toys or books. We were not allowed to hug the children or their mothers ― not even when they sobbed uncontrollably after sharing the details of their ordeals.
In the midst of this sadness and chaos, the humanity of these women shined through. One of my clients and her son, who had traveled here from Guatemala, took great pleasure in teaching me words in their indigenous language, Mam. She taught me to say “courageous” ― hao-tuitz ― and whenever our work got difficult, we would return to this exhortation. These lessons were a welcome break from reviewing the outline of the experiences that drove them to leave, fleshing it out with details for their interview. They wearied of my pressing them to remember facts I knew the asylum officer would ask about. They wanted only to say that life is very hard for indigenous people, that their knowledge of basic Spanish was not enough to make them equal members of society. Mam is not taught in schools, and almost everyone in Guatemala looks down on those who speak it. They were so happy to have a licenciada (college graduate) interested in learning about their culture. We spent almost an hour finding their rural village on Google Earth, zooming in until we could see pictures of the landscape and the people. As we scrolled through the pictures on the screen, they called out the people by name. “That’s my aunt!” and “There’s my cousin!” There were tears of loss but mostly joy at recognizing and feeling recognized ― seen by the world and not just dismissed as faceless criminals.
A diabetic woman who had not had insulin in over a week dared to ask for medical attention, an infraction for which she was stripped naked and thrown in solitary confinement.
There were stories of the astonishing generosity of people who have so little themselves. One colleague had a client who had been kidnapped with her daughter and another man by a gang while traveling north from Guatemala. The kidnappers told the three to call their families, demanding $2,000 per person to secure their release. The woman was certain she and her daughter were going to die. Her family had sold, mortgaged and borrowed everything they could to pay for their trip. They had never met the man who was kidnapped with them. She watched as he called his family. “They’re asking for $6,000 for my release,” she said he told them. He saved three lives with that phone call. When they got to the U.S.-Mexico border, they went separate ways, and she never saw him again, never knew his last name.
Not everything I heard was so positive. Without exception, the women described cruel and degrading treatment at the hands of ICE officials at the Port Isabel immigrant processing center, near Brownsville, Texas. There was the diabetic woman who had not had insulin in over a week and dared to ask for medical attention, an infraction for which she was stripped naked and thrown in solitary confinement. Women reported being kicked, screamed at, shackled at wrists and ankles and told to run. They described the cold and the humiliation of not having any privacy to use the bathroom for the weeks that they were confined. The children were also kicked, yelled at and sprayed with water by guards, then awoken several times a night, ostensibly so they could be counted.
Worse than the physical conditions were the emotional cruelties inflicted on the families. The separation of women from small children was accomplished by force (pulling the children out of their mothers’ arms) or by deceit (telling the women that their children were being taken to bathe or get medical care). Women were told repeatedly that they would never see their children again, and children were told to stop crying because they would never see their mothers again. After the children were flown secretively across the country, many faced more cruelty. “You’re going to be adopted by an American family,” one girl was told. Some were forced to clean the shelters they were staying in and faced solitary confinement (el poso) if they did not comply. Children were given psychotropic drugs to ameliorate the anxiety and depression they exhibited, without parental permission. One child underwent surgery for appendicitis; he was alone, his cries for his mother were disregarded, and she was not notified until afterward.
The months of limbo in which these women wait to learn their fate borders on psychological torture. Decisions seem arbitrary, and great pains are taken to keep the women, their lawyers and especially the press in the dark about the government’s actions and rationales for decisions. One woman I worked with had been given an ankle bracelet after receiving a positive finding at her credible fear interview. Her asylum officer had determined that she had reason to fear returning to her country and granted her freedom while she pursues legal asylum status. Having cleared this hurdle, she boarded a bus with others to be released, but at the last moment, she was told her ankle bracelet needed a new battery. It was removed, and she was sent instead to a new detention center without explanation. A reporter trying to cover the stories of separated families told me about her attempt to follow a van full of prisoners on their way to be reunited with their children so that she could interview them. First ICE sent two empty decoy vans in different directions, and then it sent a van with the detainees speeding down a highway, running red lights to try to outrun her. Every effort is being made to ensure that the public does not know what is happening.
The accounts of the horrors that women were fleeing are almost too graphic to repeat. Of the many women I spoke to, only one did not report having been raped.
The accounts of the horrors that women were fleeing are almost too graphic to repeat. Of the many women I spoke to, only one did not report having been raped. The sexual assaults the women described often involved multiple perpetrators, the use of objects for penetration and repeated threats, taunting and harassment after the rape. A Mormon woman I worked with could barely choke out the word “rape,” much less tell anyone in her family or community what had happened. Her sweet, quiet daughter knew nothing of the attack or the men who stalked the woman on her way to the store, promising to return. None of the women I spoke with had any faith that the gang-ridden police would or could provide protection, and police reports were met with shaming and threats. Overwhelmingly, the women traveled with their daughters, despite the increased danger for girls on the trip, because the women know what awaits their little girls if they stay behind. Sometimes the rapes and abuse were at the hands of their husbands or partners and to return home would mean certain death. But under the new directives issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, domestic violence is no longer a qualifying criterion for asylum.
Two things I experienced during my time in Dilley made the purpose of the detention center crystal clear. The first was an interaction with an employee waiting in line with me Monday morning to pass through the metal detector. I asked if his job was stressful, and he assured me it was not. He traveled 80 minutes each day because this was the best-paid job he could get, and he felt good about what he was doing. “These people are lucky,” he told me, “They get free clothes, free food, free cable TV. I can’t even afford cable TV.” I did not have the presence of mind to ask him if he would give up his freedom for cable. But his answers made clear to me how the economy of this rural part of Texas depends on prisons. The second thing that clarified the role of the detention center was a sign in the legal visitation trailer, next to the desk where a guard sat monitoring the door. The sign read, “Our stock price today,” with a space for someone to post the number each day. The prison is run by a for-profit corporation, earning money for its stockholders from the incarceration of women and children. It is important to note the exorbitant cost of this cruel internment project. ICE puts incarceration costs at $133 per person per night, while the government could monitor them with an ankle bracelet for $10 to $15 a day. We have essentially made a massive transfer of money from taxpayers to holders of stock in private prisons, and the women and children I met are merely collateral damage.
I have been back home for almost a month now. I am finally able to sleep without seeing the faces of my clients in my dreams, reliving their stories in my nightmares. I have never held my family so tight as I did the afternoon I arrived home, standing on the sidewalk in tears with my 7-year-old in my arms. I am in constant contact with the women I volunteered with, sharing news stories about family detention along with highlights of our personal lives. But I am still waiting for the first phone call from a client. I gave each of the women I worked with my number and made them promise to call when they get released. I even told the Mormon woman that I would pray with her. No one has called.
I comb the details of the Dilley Dispatch email, which updates the community of lawyers and volunteers about the tireless work of the on-the-ground team at Dilley. This week the team did 379 intakes with new clients and six with reunified families. There were three deportations ― two that were illegal and one that was reversed by an ACLU lawsuit. Were the deported families ones I worked with? What has become of the Mam-speaking woman and her spunky son, the Mormon woman and her soft-spoken daughter, the budding community organizer who joked about visiting me? Are they safely with relatives in California, North Carolina and Ohio? In each case, I cannot bear to imagine the alternative, the violence and poverty that await them. I have to continue to hope that with the right advocates, some people can still find refuge here, can make a new life ― that our country might live up to its promises.
Catherine Powers is a middle school social studies teacher. She lives in Colorado with her wife and two daughters.
********************************************
Yes, every Administration has used and misused immigration detention to some extent. I’ll have to admit to spending some of my past career defending the Government’s right to detain migrants.
But, no past Administration has used civil immigration detention with such evil, racist intent to penalize brown-skinned refugees, primarily abused women and children from the Northern Triangle, so that that will not be able to assert their legal and Constitutional rights in America and will never darken our doors again with their pleas for life-saving refuge. And, as Catherine Powers points out, under Trump and Sessions the “credible fear” process has become a total sham.
Even in the “Age of Trump & Sessions,’ we still have (at least for now) a Constitution and a democratic process for removing these grotesquely unqualified shams of public officials from office. It starts with removing their GOP enablers in the House and Senate.
Get out the vote in November to oust the GOP and restore humane, Constitutional Government that respects individuals of all races and genders and honors our legal human rights obligations. If decent Americans don’t act now, 1939 might be here before we know it!
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. May 27, 2009. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL. 