"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
From “We’ve Never Been Smuggled Before” by Matthew Aikins in the NYT:
. . . .
But the plight of Afghan refugees can be an opportunity to rework migration and asylum policies for a future that will increasingly blur the distinction between traditional refugees and migrants fleeing economic and social disasters, including those that are the result of climate change.
It’s not just former translators and journalists who need help. Afghans migrating out of hunger and desperation are also the victims of the West’s failed war. Even if mass starvation is averted, Afghans will continue to leave their country, out of a combination of fear and because they want a better life. The Afghan middle class, which has seen its savings and livelihoods evaporate, will use the resources they have to emigrate. The outflow of Afghan migrants will not end in the short term; nor should it. Indeed, Afghan migration should be seen for what it is, a rational strategy undertaken by people who find agency in the midst of great adversity. Afghans are capable of helping their own communities, if we allow them. Remittances, or money sent home by migrants, contribute three times more to the developing world than international aid.
Whether we meet them with compassion and reason, or prejudice and violence, people will never stop trying to cross borders.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete article at the link.
The future will belong to countries that figure out how to harness the power of human migration and deal with its inevitability.
Ann is active in evaluation circles nationally. Her evaluation practice and podcast center on Georgia and its community-based social service organizations.
On the pod we make the following points:
(1) Advocacy is an important tactic to achieve social change goals.
(2) Strong advocacy is led by affected communities. Allies in the nonprofit and philanthropy sectors provide important support to community-led change.
(3) Elected officials need and want input from service providers in their districts. Whether you have lots of time for advocacy or only a very limited amount of time, your input can make a difference.
(4) Help is available for community organizations that want to investigate advocacy but are not sure what they are legally permitted to do. Bolder Advocacy, a program of Alliance for Justice, provides technical assistance and training.
Thanks, Kathleen, my friend, and Ann for putting this important guidance together and making it accessible!
Also, a special “shout out” to Bolder Advocacy at Alliance for Justice for their expertise in helping 501(c)(3) orgs “color within the lines” especially during these challenging times.
As I constantly preach, expertise is important, even if Democrats too often “don’t get that” when dealing with human rights, and other social and racial justice issues.
So what should we tell our students? Many are dispirited and cynical because, as far into the future as they can see, this court appears likely to do more harm than good to democracy.
First, we shouldn’t hide the reality that judicial decisions often depend on who is on the bench. That has never been more true because the entrenched partisan Senate confirmation process now guarantees that a Supreme Court nominee will be chosen to carry out political and ideological aims. For the first time in American history, the ideology of the justices precisely corresponds to the political party of the president who appointed them. All six conservatives were appointed by Republican presidents and all three liberals were appointed by Democrats.
Until recently, there were moderate liberals, such as John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, appointed by Republicans, and there were moderate conservatives, such as Byron White and Felix Frankfurter, who had been appointed by Democrats. Trump picked three of the most ideologically conservative judges on the federal bench.
If students are to one day become effective litigators on constitutional rights, they will need to understand the ideologies of the justices interpreting the law. In the past, we certainly discussed the ideology of the justices with our students, but we must focus on it far more now as the ideological differences between the Republican-appointed justices and judges and those appointed by Democratic presidents are greater than they have ever been.
Second, we must remind students that there have been other bleak times in constitutional law when rights were contracted. From the 1890s until 1936, a conservative Supreme Court struck down over 200 progressive federal, state and local laws protecting workers and consumers. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the court refused to stand up to the hysteria of McCarthyism. The current court will not last forever, though it may feel like that to them.
Third, we should direct focus on other avenues for change. Students need to look more to state courts and legislatures, at least in some parts of the country, as a way to advance liberty and equality. For instance, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law known as the “Roe Act,” protecting a woman’s right to abortion under state law, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. We need to teach our students how to use the power of local governments to protect fair housing, public education and public health.
Fourth, we must encourage them to look at the sweep of history. In the early 1960s, almost half the states had Jim Crow segregation laws, there were few women going to law school, and every state had a law criminally prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that the arc of the moral universe is long and it bends toward justice — if we work for it.
There really are just two choices: Give up or fight harder, even if there will be a lot of losses along the way. If we can instill in students a desire to defend justice, even if victory is distant, it will be a good semester, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. Jeffrey Abramson is professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin.
*************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Sometimes, the best you can do is save as many lives as you can, one at a time. Eventually, it adds up. Also, as the article suggests, it’s critical to get involved and speak out on local political issues. That’s where the fascist far-right has made huge inroads.
WASHINGTON — What if you attempted a coup but people were unwilling to wrap their heads around what you had done?
A year after Jan. 6, 2021, that is the peculiar situation in which Donald Trump finds himself. Instead of being carted off in handcuffs for inciting an insurrection against the United States, or even just being banished from federal office for life by the Senate, the former president instead remains the leader of one of the two major political parties and is openly considering another run for the White House in 2024.
The government is finally taking the threat of far-right militia groups seriously. But the larger threat are the Republican legislators who continue to recklessly undermine democracy
One year ago, he was frantically barricading the doors to the House gallery to keep out the violent mob. Today, he calls the insurrection a “bold-faced lie” and likens the event to “a normal tourist visit”. The story of Andrew Clyde, who represents part of my – heavily gerrymandered – liberal college town in the House of Representatives, is the story of the Republican party in 2021. It shows a party that had the opportunity to break with the anti-democratic course under Donald Trump, but was too weak in ideology and leadership to do so, thereby presenting a fundamental threat to US democracy in 2022 and beyond.
The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under Trump | Laurence H Tribe
Clyde is illustrative of another ongoing development, the slow but steady takeover of the Republican party by new, and often relatively young, Trump supporters. In 2015, when his massive gun store on the outskirts of town was still flying the old flag of Georgia, which includes the Confederate flag, he was a lone, open supporter of then-presidential candidate Trump, with several large pro-Trump and anti-“fake news” signs adorning his gun store. Five years later, Clyde was elected to the House of Representatives as part of a wave of Trump-supporting novices, mostly replacing Republicans who had supported President Trump more strategically than ideologically.
With his 180-degree turn about the 6 January insurrection, Clyde is back in line with the majority of the Republican base, as a recent UMass poll shows. After initial shock, and broad condemnation, Republicans have embraced the people who stormed the Capitol last year, primarily referring to the event as a “protest” (80%) and to the insurrectionists as “protesters” (62%), while blaming the Democratic party (30%), the Capitol police (23%), and the inevitable antifa (20%) for what happened. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Republicans (75%) believe the country should “move on” from 6 January, rather than learn from it. And although most don’t care either way, one-third of Republicans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who refuses to denounce the insurrection.
Advertisement
Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.
Upgrade to Premium
The increased anti-democratic threat of the Republican party can also be seen in the tidal wave of voting restrictions proposed and passed in 2021. The Brennan Center for Justice counted a stunning 440 bills “with provisions that restrict voting access” introduced across all but one of the 50 US states, the highest number since the Center started tracking them 10 years ago. A total of 34 such laws were passed in 19 different states last year, and 88 bills in nine states are being carried over to the 2022 legislative term. Worryingly, Trump-backed Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen are running for secretary of state in various places where Trump unsuccessfully challenged the results.
. . . .
At the same time, the Republican party has become increasingly united and naked in its extremism, which denies both the anti-democratic character of the 6 January attack and the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency, and is passing an unprecedented number of voter restriction bills in preparation for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential elections. As long as the White House mainly focuses on fighting “domestic violent extremism”, and largely ignores or minimizes the much more lethal threat to US democracy posed by non-violent extremists, the US will continue to move closer and closer to an authoritarian future.
***************************
You can read both articles in full at the above links.
If you are counting on AG Merrick Garland to “lead the charge” on establishing accountability, your optimism might be tempered by his own failure to “clean house” at DOJ and in particular by his failure to reform his wholly-owned Immigration Court system that was front and center in assisting and carrying out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist assault on the rule of law, primarily targeting individuals of color and the “world’s most vulnerable” seeking justice in our system.
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?
“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”
The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.
Why does this happen?
There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.
And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.
What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.
“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”
Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.
Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.
“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”
If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.
It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.
*************
Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.
The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.
At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?
With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.
This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”
In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!
In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?
Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.
Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.
But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?
These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.
We deserve better from our legal system!
Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎
Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling.☠️
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “limited vision” for EOIR is a continuing nightmare for those sentenced to appear and practice before his stunningly dysfunctional and “highly user unfriendly” Immigration “Courts.” Isn’t it high time to insist that those given responsibility for stewardship over America’s largest — and probably most consequential — Federal “Court” system actually have represented humans before those “courts?” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”
Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town
NOTICE
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Policy
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR Oct. 14, 2021
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge
Agency Seeks Qualified Individuals for Immigration Judge Positions
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Andrea Saenz as a Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s appointment of Appellate Immigration Judge Saenz brings the BIA to its regulatory maximum of 23 Members.
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,
having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including
Immigration Judges. EOIR has more than 2,300 employees in its 69 immigration courts
nationwide, at the BIA and at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. As provided in the
President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration
judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.
EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.
Biographical information follows:
Andrea Saenz, Appellate Immigration Judge
Andrea Saenz was appointed as an Appellate Immigration Judge in October 2021. Judge Saenz earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Harvard Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she was Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, Brooklyn Defender Services, in Brooklyn, NY. From 2013 to 2016, she was a Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (New York). From 2012 to 2013, she was a Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 2010 to 2012, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the New York – Varick Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. From 2008 to 2010, she was an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, in Boston. Judge Saenz is a member of the New York State Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge Page 2
— EOIR —
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
*******************
“Courtside” readers had this story three weeks ago:
Congratulations again, Judge Saenz! Capable as she is, Judge Saenz is just one among 23 BIA Appellate Immigration Judges. All of her colleagues are “government insiders,” and none has any recent experience representing individuals in Immigration Court!
Decades of skewed hiring at EOIR overwhelmingly favored those with government/prosecutorial backgrounds by a ratio of more than 9 to 1 (even worse at the BIA, where Judge Saenz is the first “private sector” appointee since the waning days of the Clinton Administration and the “Schmidt Board” in 2000).
This is in a system where studies such as the highly acclaimed Refugee Roulette have consistently shown that judges’ backgrounds and personal philosophies have more to do with the outcome of “life or death cases” than the actual merits of the claims. Claims that might be routinely and properly granted by one judge are summarily rejected by others, sometimes in another courtroom in the same court building!
The BIA as currently comprised has shown neither an interest in nor the ability to consistently protect due process, equal justice, individual rights, and enforce consistency among Immigration Courts. Indeed, there is a ridiculous and quite intentional dearth of positive asylum precedents from the BIA and the various AGs who have inserted themselves onto the process!
Remarkably, as shown by recent FOIA disclosures, “rubber stampism” in a race to make quotas, please political “handlers,” and hold onto jobs and careers is still “alive and well” at today’s EOIR, including the BIA:
EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.
That this belated announcement on October 14 cites a deadline at noon the next day (now expired) is probably a good indicator of the (lack of) sincerity of EOIR’s claims that it actively seeks “diversification,” particularly from the private/NGO/academic sector.
Fortunately, I’m aware that a number of exceptionally well-qualified NDPA members have “thrown their hats in the/ring.” There will be future announcements and opportunities.
So NDPA members need to “put DOJ/EOIR to the test” by flooding their “designed for insiders” system and pathetically inadequate recruitment mechanisms (e.g., where’s the “outreach” to HBCUs, to Hispanic, Black, and Asian American Bar Associations, and to human rights NGOs?) with a tidal wave of superior applicants who can change this broken system into a real due-process-oriented judiciary, even in the absence of dynamic progressive leadership at with a plan!
The treatment of Haitian refugees at the U.S. border last month — some chased by horseback agents, others huddled by the thousands under a bridge — is tragic. For reasons that are less obvious, it is also ironic. Although Americans’ centuries-long debt to the Haitian people is untaught in our schools and unacknowledged in our public discourse, the indomitable spirit of the Haitian people created the United States we know today.
Even the capsule version of Haiti’s successful fight to end slavery and for independence at the turn of the 19th century is riveting. C.L.R. James, the late Trinidadian political leader and historian of the Caribbean, wrote six decades ago:
“In August 1791, after two years of the French Revolution and its repercussions in [Hispaniola], the slaves revolted. The struggle lasted for 12 years. The slaves defeated in turn the local whites and the soldiers of the French monarchy, a Spanish invasion, a British expedition of some 60,000 men, and a French expedition of similar size under Bonaparte’s brother-in-law. The defeat of Bonaparte’s expedition in 1803 resulted in the establishment of the Negro state of Haiti which has lasted to this day.”
It’s one of the most remarkable stories of liberation that we have as a species: the largest revolt of enslaved people in human history, and the only one known to have produced a free state. But even this sweeping account understated the extraordinary role that Haiti’s rebellious enslaved played in world history.
Their success in freeing themselves in the face of the stoutest European hostility imaginable ironically made Haiti the first nation to fulfill the most fundamental values of the Enlightenment: freedom from bondage and racial equality for all. These principles were enshrined in Haiti’s first constitution, in 1804, decades before they were embraced by the United States.
And that was just the beginning.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
How have we repaid the debt? By illegally deporting Haitian asylum seekers to the “kidnapping center of the world” and then disingenuously claiming that it is a “safe” country for returns!
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Four days after the August earthquake that devastated the south of Haiti, Walkens Alexandre, a physician, was traveling to treat victims at a hospital when a motorcycle blocked his white Ford Ranger. Two men hopped off, pulled guns, commandeered his truck and hauled him to the outskirts of the capital.
He was held for three days while the kidnappers negotiated by phone with his family. He’d be set free for 30 times his monthly salary. Loved ones pleaded with relatives and friends to contribute to the ransom.
“Now I’m traumatized, fearful of people, and reminded of this every time someone slams a door, or I hear a motorcycle,” said Alexandre, 43. “We don’t feel safe in Haiti. There is always panic, always fear.”
The most troubled nation in the hemisphere is now being held hostage by a surge in kidnappings.
With victims spanning all social classes and ransoms ranging from as little as $100 to six figures, Haiti now holds the tragic title of highest per capita kidnapping rate on Earth. Recorded kidnappings so far this year have spiked sixfold over the same period last year, as criminals nab doctors on their way to work, preachers delivering sermons, entire busloads of people in transit — even police on patrol. So great is the surge that this year, Port-au-Prince is posting more kidnappings in absolute terms than vastly larger Bogotá, Mexico City and São Paulo combined, according to the consulting firm Control Risks.
[Haitian migrants thought Biden would welcome them. Now deported to Haiti, they have one mission: Leave again.]
Locals and foreigners alike are living in fear. The heads of several foreign companies told The Washington Post that the kidnapping wave led them to reassign staffers to remote work in other Caribbean countries, Europe or the United States. Other firms are leaving Haiti altogether.
“Every time you leave your door in Port-au-Prince, it’s like a game of Russian roulette,” said one European executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security. “You don’t know if you’ll be kidnapped that day.”
Maarten Boute, chairman of cellular phone provider Digicel Haiti, said his firm has resorted to moving staff only in armored cars with drivers trained for kidnapping scenarios. Because of the escalating risk, he said, he abandoned his Port-au-Prince home this year to move into a fortified hotel compound.
“Most people who can afford it and have visas have sent their family away, or moved outside the country,” he said. “We are using armed security, armored cars and have patrols that [scout] roads. But we still avoid certain areas, or moving around, as much as we can.”
Saddled with endemic poverty and violence, Haiti is no stranger to kidnapping waves. The country suffered a brutal surge from 2005 until the 2010 earthquake, which killed more than 220,000 people but had the effect of moderating kidnappings. Numbers have climbed steadily in recent years as violent gangs, unchecked by the government, have seized control over key portions of the country.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the report at the link!
This is a “safe country” for removal? “Rounding them up and moving them out” without meaningful inquiry into individual circumstances is “American justice?” Come on, man!
Mayorkas and Garland have obviously spent far too much time at the “Miller Lite Happy Hour” 🤮☠️ and far too little time restoring the rule of law for vulnerable asylum seekers who deserve our protection!👎🏽
“Miller Lite” on Tap @ DOJ & DHS! Maybe Mayorkas & Garland have had “one too many!”
What follows is an excerpt from my book which will be published on Oct. 12. (I also published an excerpt this week in the Times magazine.) The book is a meditation on the 1965 Immigration Act, which I argue is the starting point of the multiethnic society we live in today.
***
On Oct. 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson stood in front of the Statue of Liberty and said something that would be proved wrong: “This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.” He was referring to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, a landmark piece of legislation that lifted restrictive quotas on immigration from Asia, Africa and southern and Eastern Europe.
Its opponents at the time it was finally passed described apocalyptic scenarios in which the United States and its white population would be overrun by a horde of foreigners. Johnson, for his part, assured the public that the easing of restrictions would have only a mild effect on the demographics of the country. Most people, he believed, would stay in their home countries.
Over the next five decades, the Hart-Celler Act would bring tens of millions of immigrants from Asia, southern and Eastern Europe, and Africa. No single piece of legislation has shaped the demographic and economic history of this country in quite the same way.
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston CollegeFrances Perkins (1880-1965) U.S. Secretary of Labor (1933-45) PHOTO: Public realm
From “Letters From An American:”
September 5, 2021
By Heather Cox Richardson
On March 25, 1911, Frances Perkins was visiting with a friend who lived near Washington Square in New York City when they heard fire engines and people screaming. They rushed out to the street to see what the trouble was. A fire had broken out in a garment factory on the upper floors of a building on Washington Square, and the blaze ripped through the lint in the air. The only way out was down the elevator, which had been abandoned at the base of its shaft, or through an exit to the roof. But the factory owner had locked the roof exit that day because, he later testified, he was worried some of his workers might steal some of the blouses they were making.
“The people had just begun to jump when we got there,” Perkins later recalled. “They had been holding until that time, standing in the windowsills, being crowded by others behind them, the fire pressing closer and closer, the smoke closer and closer. Finally the men were trying to get out this thing that the firemen carry with them, a net to catch people if they do jump, the[y] were trying to get that out and they couldn’t wait any longer. They began to jump. The… weight of the bodies was so great, at the speed at which they were traveling that they broke through the net. Every one of them was killed, everybody who jumped was killed. It was a horrifying spectacle.”
By the time the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was out, 147 young people were dead, either from their fall from the factory windows or from smoke inhalation.
Perkins had few illusions about industrial America: she had worked in a settlement house in an impoverished immigrant neighborhood in Chicago and was the head of the New York office of the National Consumers League, urging consumers to use their buying power to demand better conditions and wages for workers. But even she was shocked by the scene she witnessed on March 25.
By the next day, New Yorkers were gathering to talk about what had happened on their watch. “I can’t begin to tell you how disturbed the people were everywhere,” Perkins said. “It was as though we had all done something wrong. It shouldn’t have been. We were sorry…. We didn’t want it that way. We hadn’t intended to have 147 girls and boys killed in a factory. It was a terrible thing for the people of the City of New York and the State of New York to face.”
The Democratic majority leader in the New York legislature, Al Smith—who would a few years later go on to four terms as New York governor and become the Democratic presidential nominee in 1928—went to visit the families of the dead to express his sympathy and his grief. “It was a human, decent, natural thing to do,” Perkins said, “and it was a sight he never forgot. It burned it into his mind. He also got to the morgue, I remember, at just the time when the survivors were being allowed to sort out the dead and see who was theirs and who could be recognized. He went along with a number of others to the morgue to support and help, you know, the old father or the sorrowing sister, do her terrible picking out.”
“This was the kind of shock that we all had,” Perkins remembered.
The next Sunday, concerned New Yorkers met at the Metropolitan Opera House with the conviction that “something must be done. We’ve got to turn this into some kind of victory, some kind of constructive action….” One man contributed $25,000 to fund citizens’ action to “make sure that this kind of thing can never happen again.”
The gathering appointed a committee, which asked the legislature to create a bipartisan commission to figure out how to improve fire safety in factories. For four years, Frances Perkins was their chief investigator.
She later explained that although their mission was to stop factory fires, “we went on and kept expanding the function of the commission ’till it came to be the report on sanitary conditions and to provide for their removal and to report all kinds of unsafe conditions and then to report all kinds of human conditions that were unfavorable to the employees, including long hours, including low wages, including the labor of children, including the overwork of women, including homework put out by the factories to be taken home by the women. It included almost everything you could think of that had been in agitation for years. We were authorized to investigate and report and recommend action on all these subjects.”
And they did. Al Smith was the speaker of the house when they published their report, and soon would become governor. Much of what the commission recommended became law.
Perkins later mused that perhaps the new legislation to protect workers had in some way paid the debt society owed to the young people, dead at the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. “The extent to which this legislation in New York marked a change in American political attitudes and policies toward social responsibility can scarcely be overrated,” she said. “It was, I am convinced, a turning point.”
But she was not done. In 1919, over the fervent objections of men, Governor Smith appointed Perkins to the New York State Industrial Commission to help weed out the corruption that was weakening the new laws. She continued to be one of his closest advisers on labor issues. In 1929, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt replaced Smith as New York governor, he appointed Perkins to oversee the state’s labor department as the Depression worsened. When President Herbert Hoover claimed that unemployment was ending, Perkins made national news when she repeatedly called him out with figures proving the opposite and said his “misleading statements” were “cruel and irresponsible.” She began to work with leaders from other states to figure out how to protect workers and promote employment by working together.
In 1933, after the people had rejected Hoover’s plan to let the Depression burn itself out, President-elect Roosevelt asked Perkins to serve as Secretary of Labor in his administration. She accepted only on the condition that he back her goals: unemployment insurance; health insurance; old-age insurance, a 40-hour work week; a minimum wage; and abolition of child labor. She later recalled: “I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”
She promised to find out.
Once in office, Perkins was a driving force behind the administration’s massive investment in public works projects to get people back to work. She urged the government to spend $3.3 billion on schools, roads, housing, and post offices. Those projects employed more than a million people in 1934.
In 1935, FDR signed the Social Security Act, providing ordinary Americans with unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services.
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a minimum wage and maximum hours. It banned child labor.
Frances Perkins, and all those who worked with her, transformed the horror of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire into the heart of our nation’s basic social safety net.
“There is always a large horizon…. There is much to be done,” Perkins said. “It is up to you to contribute some small part to a program of human betterment for all time.”
Aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire (1911) ILGWU Archives Public Realm
Get more from HCR at the above link!
Perkins is one of the most important and under-recognized heroes of modern American history. Perkins believed that Government was there to promote the public good.
But, it wasn’t just a hollow slogan like those spouted by many of today’s politicos. She actually “walked the walk,” using her powerful intellect, energy, talent, advocacy skills, persistence, and influence with FDR to make America a much better place.
Just think of it: “unemployment insurance; health insurance; old-age insurance, a 40-hour work week; a minimum wage; and abolition of child labor.” An amazing list of accomplishments for which she has received far, far too little credit from historians. Today, most Americans probably think of Perkins, if at all, as the “first female Cabinet Secretary.” But she was more than that. Much more!
Perkins also used her position as Labor Secretary (prior to WW II the cabinet officer with responsibility for immigration) creatively in an attempt to save Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Although she won a major legal battle on the positive use of “charge bonds” to assist refugees, the actual effects of her humanitarian efforts appear to have been unfortunately limited.
In the xenophobic, anti-Semitic, isolationist America of the 1930s, she also became a target of the far right for her strong commitment to human rights. In 1939, Congressional xenophobes initiated an unsuccessful impeachment attempt.
In 1940, FDR transferred responsibility for immigration from the Labor Department to the Department of Justice. That spelled not only the end of Perkins’s efforts to help Jewish refugees, but also was a death sentence for many who might have been saved.
The DOJ threw up a powerful combination of restrictive requirements and bureaucracy to guarantee the death of more European Jews in the Holocaust. Indeed, the DOJ went one better by putting Japanese-American U.S. citizens in concentration camps based on “national security” claims that have since been shown to be both bogus and racially motivated. Sound familiar?
You can read all about this disgraceful chapter in American history and Perkins’s largely fruitless attempts to “swim against the tide” here, in this article by Rebecca Brenner Graham in Contingent Magazine: https://contingentmagazine.org/2019/08/23/no-refuge/.
Dr. Rebecca Brenner Graham Teacher, Author, Historian PHOTO: Rebeccabrennergraham.com
I really enjoyed Rebecca’s very lively, accessible historical writing that brings to life one of the ugliest episodes in modern American history, now largely swept under the carpet by today’s nativist revisionists. It’s also covered in the a Holocaust museum, an exhibit that contains much of the same bogus “America is full” xenophobic rhetoric spouted by too many of today’s GOP nativists.
This really horrible response by Western democracies to lives in peril was what gave rise to the Geneva Refugee Convention, the basis for the Refugee Act of 1980 and our current refugee and asylum system! How quickly we forget! The Trump Administration, with help from the Supremes, basically abrogated the legal system for refugees and asylees, without legislation. Despite promises to restore the rule of law, the Biden Administration has basically allowed most of Trump’s illegal and immoral policies to continue damaging humanity and diminishing us as a nation.
What would Frances Perkins have done? Certainly more than Garland and Mayorkas! At any rate, I enjoyed Rebecca’s historical writing and look forward to more!
A few years ago, Cathy and I had the pleasure of touring the Perkins Family Homestead, near Damariscotta, Maine, now owned by the Frances Perkins Center, with our dear, now departed Boothbay Harbor neighbor Sue Bazinet. It certainly opened my eyes to what true progressive values, lived and acted upon, were and still are!
Frances Perkins Homestead Damariscotta, ME PHOTO: Francis Perkins Center
We could use more leaders like Perkins today! Many thanks to the always-fabulous HCR for highlighting this great American!
ELIE MYSTAL, Justice Correspondent, writes in The Nation:
. . . .
The opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, and Judge Du’s arguments are so obvious in retrospect that it’s kind of amazing they aren’t a staple of the immigration debate in this country. But this is where Judge Du’s background perhaps becomes important.
DONATE NOW TO POWER THE NATION.
Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.
Miranda Du was born in Ca Mau, Vietnam, in 1969. Her family fled the nation after the Vietnam War when she was 9, first to Malaysia, before eventually making its way to Alabama. She went to Berkeley for law school and was an employment lawyer in Nevada when Harry Reid and Barack Obama made her a federal district judge in 2011. I would imagine that Judge Du looks at the US immigration system with a fresh perspective, at least as compared to a person like me, who was born here and has been taught to just accept a background level of bigotry as an immutable fact of immigration law. One of the more striking parts of her opinion in this case is the section in which she calls out other courts for not doing this sooner. She essentially says that courts in other jurisdictions that have looked at Section 1326 have blindly accepted the government’s reasoning that the 1952 reauthorization cleansed the statute of its racial bias, without really looking at the 1952 Congress.
The opinion is brilliant, and I’m going to print it out so I’ll still have a copy of it when Justice Samuel Alito and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court reverse it and order Du’s opinion to be nuked from orbit. There is, practically speaking, no chance this ruling survives Supreme Court review. The high court will skate over the disparate impact analysis by saying that any person, regardless of race, who crosses the southern border will experience the same over-enforcement. Or the court will reverse the ruling of racist intent by finding, as other courts have, that the 1952 Congress did cleanse the statute of racism. Or they’ll find that the government does have a legitimate and permissible interest in discriminating against southern border crossers. After all, the Supreme Court found bigotry to be okay in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the Muslim ban, so finding a reason to uphold Section 1326 will be child’s play for the conservatives who like a little bigotry in their immigration rulings.
And that’s if the case even makes it to the Supreme Court, which it probably won’t. Judge Du’s ruling will first be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I could see it getting reversed there. It’s unlikely that other liberal judges will even want to open this can of worms. As I said, Judge Du relies on a disparate impact analysis, and I can think of at least three Supreme Court justices who might be in the mood to overturn disparate impact analysis altogether.
Judge Du is right about the bigotry inherent in our immigration laws, but conservatives like the bigotry and liberals will be afraid that trying to stop it will just piss off the conservatives.
But at least this opinion exists now. It’s out there, and future lawyers and judges can read it and maybe think differently about the core assumptions at the heart of our immigration system. A lone federal judge cannot stop 100 years of bigoted policies, but if you want to know what a truly progressive legal analysis looks like, Judge Du just spelled one out.
Now, President Biden just needs to read it and go out and nominate 100 judges who agree.
***************
Read the full article at the link.
Biden could start by telling Garland to “redo” the U.S. Immigration Courts with well-qualified, expert, progressive judges in the “ Chief Judge Miranda Du” image!
Different backgrounds and new, “real life” perspectives! That’s why two decades of appointments of almost exclusively prosecutors and government bureaucrats, to the exclusion of human rights experts and advocates, to the Immigration Judiciary has produced such unfair and disastrous results for humanity and American law! Similar to other “blind spots” in American law, it has also created misery and cost innocent lives.
For the most part, judges of all philosophies hate being confronted with “ugly truths” about the system they are a part of. Consequently, the impetus to sweep historical truth and logical legal reasoning under the carpet when it produces uncomfortable, unpopular, and highly controversial results is overwhelming on all sides of the judicial spectrum, with the exception of a few “brave souls” like Chief Judge Du.
One of the most obvious and disgraceful of these “dodges,” is the abject failure of the Article IIIs to confront head on the clear Fifth Amendment unconstitutionality of the Executive’s “captive Immigration Courts,” particularly as currently staffed and still operating in “Miller Lite, White Nationalist mode.”
But, courageous decisions like this will be a part of our permanent legal history and come back to haunt today’s go along to get along Federal Judges, at all levels!
“Thomas Malthus was wrong about economics, but he would be delighted with the GOP’s dishonest “beggar thy neighbor” policies!” Creative Commons 4.0
If you’ve taken Econ 101, you were probably taught that the economy is a zero-sum game. If I win, another economic actor has to lose. One group’s gains mean another’s losses. The issue with that theory? It’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous: Nationalist leaders around the world have played on voters’ fears by threatening that the economic progress of immigrants and minorities will result in losses for everyone else.
The truth is, life isn’t a zero-sum game. A growing body of evidence actually shows that inclusion isn’t just compatible with economic growth – it’s absolutely necessary.
On this week’s episode of Nick Hanauer’s podcast Pitchfork Economics, JP Julien discusses a report that he co-wrote as a leader of global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company’s Institute for Black Economic Mobility. This think tank isn’t in the business of getting accolades from progressive circles – or conservative ones – it’s focused on the cold, hard data. Here’s what Julien told us about economic inclusion:
When more people can fully participate in the economy, we all win
Julien says that when people from all races and backgrounds are able to participate as workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers, the economy is stronger and more resilient. There’s already plenty of evidence for this theory: Between 1960 and 2010, 40% of GDP growth can be directly tied to women and people of color joining the labor force. “The data speaks quite clearly that the more we get people to participate, the better outcomes we produce,” Julien says.
Economic discrimination hurts all of us
There’s a staggering price tag on economic discrimination against people of color and women in America. In his paper, Julien found that eliminating wealth disparities between Black and white households and Hispanic and white households could add $2 to $3 trillion of incremental annual GDP to the U.S. economy. And if more women join the workforce over the coming years, we could add $2.1 trillion in GDP by 2025.
These gains aren’t zero-sum numbers; they don’t come at the expense of the economic value of white men – those numbers are in addition to that growth. That means America’s missing out on at least $5 trillion of economic activity because whole demographics have been shut out of the economy.
Corporations that focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion outperform their peers
From the end of last year to this May, we’ve seen Fortune 1000 companies spend $66 billion in racial equity commitments. That’s because of a growing consensus among Fortune 1000 companies that being good corporate citizens actually creates economic opportunities. In his research, Julien found that corporations with more diverse boards and diverse leadership teams actually outperform their peers. It’s becoming impossible to ignore: DEI policies lead to a better and more profitable workplace.
For centuries, our economy has been constructed around exclusionary policies that shut out women and people of color – and this is discrimination is taking a toll on everyday Americans and our country’s economic growth. We can all win by increasing inclusion in the economic playing field – but we’re going to need all hands on deck to tear down this unfair economic system, and that means we need your help right now.
We’ve created an urgent poll to show support for win-win policies that allow everyone to participate in our economic system. We need 5,000 people to answer this one question before 11:59 p.m. tonight, and we’re counting on you to cast your vote tonight. Tell us now:
Does economic inclusion lead to greater economic growth?
“For centuries, our economy has been constructed around exclusionary policies that shut out women and people of color – and this discrimination is taking a toll on everyday Americans and our country’s economic growth.”
Couldn’t help thinking of these words as I listened to insurrectionist/traitor “Cancun Ted” Cruz pontificate about why it’s OK to exploit farmworker labor and mischaracterize a long-overdue and well-earned legal status as “amnesty” in responding to Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) during a hearing yesterday on helping farm workers.
Despite the noxious, racist, White Nationalist bogus rhetoric of Cruz, Gov. Gregg Abbott, and other GOP political hacks from the Lone Star State, Texas and its economy would indeed be in dire straits without the economic and cultural contributions of migrants, both documented and undocumented. So would the rest of us without the essential services, productivity, and societal contributions of immigrants of all types. Indeed, without immigrants of all types, Native Americans would be the only inhabitants of America.
We need immigration laws and policies built on truth and optimism about the future, not the “beggar thy neighbor” White Nationalist myths of the nativist restrictionists!
Having pride in your country can lead to greater well-being, but only if you do it right.
. . . .
Over the next century, this kind of patriotism came to seem less strange around the world as societies became more demographically diverse and shared values became more central to national identity. In 1945, George Orwell defined patriotism as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.” He contrasted patriotism with nationalism, by which he meant “the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labeled ‘good’ or ‘bad’”; also, “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”
Nationalists may identify as patriots, and some people opposed to both ideologies might argue that they are equivalent. For national and individual well-being, though, distinguishing between them is important. Following Tocqueville and Orwell, we might define patriotism as civic pride in our democratic institutions and shared culture, and nationalism as a sense of superiority or identity, defined by demographics such as race, religion, or language. Modern social science finds a major quality-of-life difference between the two. In 2013, a cross-national team of political scientists measured the effects of each on the levels of social trust and voluntary association, both of which are strongly positively associated with personal well-being. They found that civic pride usually pushed both up, and ethnic pride pushed both down.
Given the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that patriotism, as we have traditionally understood it in the United States, is good for our happiness. Meanwhile, nationalism (under Orwell’s definition) is not. If we are moving toward the latter in our society—as many argue we are—then, in terms of happiness, we are moving in the wrong direction.
No matter your political views or where you live, you can cultivate a patriotism of the healthy Tocquevillian sort, for your own benefit and to help inflect the national mood. This requires that you follow two guidelines.
MacKenzie Scott Philanthropist & Author Official USG Photo from 2016 Naturalization Ceremony Public Realm
Bess Levin Politics & Finance Writer Vanity Fair
Bess Levin in the Levin Report:
On Tuesday, for the third time in less than a year, Mackenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, announced that she had given more than a billion dollars to charity. This time, it was $2.74 billion to 286 different organizations, including ones focused racial justice. That brings her charitable giving since divorcing Bezos in 2019 to more than $8 billion, with much of it coming in the last 12 months, including $4.2 billion in grants announced last December. In a Medium post published this morning, Scott wrote that she and her new husband, Dan Jewett, as well as “a constellation of researchers and administrators and advisors,” are “attempting to give away a fortune that was enabled by systems in need of change,” and that they are “governed by a humbling belief that it would be better if disproportionate wealth were not concentrated in a small number of hands.” She didn’t add, “like those of my cheapskate ex-husband, Jeff,” though it’s hard to believe she wasn’t thinking it!
Even if Scott was not, few people will be able to look at the huge amounts of money she has been giving away and not think about the fact that Bezos, the literal richest man in the world, has distributed what philanthropic experts define as “diddly-squat” as a proportion of his wealth, preferring instead to focus on launching himself into space. In 2018, amidst substantiatedreports that Amazon employees relieve themselves in bottles or forego bathroom breaks for fear “of being disciplined for idling and losing their jobs as a result,” and data revealing that nearly one third of Amazon’s Arizona employees were relying on food stamps, Bezos said in an interview that he couldn’t for the life of him think of a way to spend his vast fortune outside of funding his for-profit rocket-ship company, Blue Origin. (“The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” he told Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. “That is basically it.… I am currently liquidating about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock to fund Blue Origin. And I plan to continue to do that for a long time. Because you’re right, you’re not going to spend it on a second dinner out.”) A month after that, Amazon was instrumental in killing a proposed $275-per-employee tax for large Seattle–based businesses that would have helped alleviate the city’s serious homeless problem caused by companies like Amazon.
Over the years, Bezos has said things about charitable giving like, “Our core business activities are probably the most important thing we do to contribute, as well as our employment in the area,” and, “I’m convinced that in many cases, for-profit models improve the world more than philanthropy models, if they can be made to work.” In 2010 he donated $100,000 to help vanquish an initiative to impose a state income tax on Washington’s wealthiest residents, per The Seattle Times. “There’s almost nothing I could have predicted with more precision than that Jeff would hate the idea,” early Amazon investor Nick Hanauer, a backer of the initiative, told the outlet.
Speaking of taxes, Amazon, of course, pays very little of them, having avoided federal income taxes in numerous years. Meanwhile, Bezos himself was recently featured in ProPublica for paying nothing in federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011, and paying a “true tax rate” of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018. He also applied for and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children in 2011, when he was worth roughly $18 billion, ProPublica reported.
Only being human, Bezos apparently doesn’t like it when people start wondering why he doesn’t give away more of his $195.2 billion fortune. After The New York Times insinuated a few years ago that he was a cheap prick, Bezos announced that he would donate $2 billion to philanthropic ventures, which at the time represented a tiny fraction of his net worth (now, it’s much less). Last year, he pledge significantly more through the Bezos Earth Fund, though as Recode noted in February:
…the fact is that we don’t even know where that $10 billion sits. Is the money actually placed in a charitable vehicle like a foundation, a donor-advised fund, or a limited liability company? Or is it more of a rhetorical pledge, similar to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s commitment in 2015 to set aside 99 percent of their money to philanthropy.… We don’t know. Bezos’s representatives have consistently declined to share information on the Earth Fund’s structure.
Next month, Bezos will (temporarily) leave earth, after adding $65 billion to his net worth during the pandemic.
******************
Read the rest of the always entertaining Levin Report at this link:
Biden campaigned, and won, on a very different message.
He promised to “restore the soul of America,” which he argued included welcoming the stranger. It was a message he had promoted for decades. Upon taking office, he declared plans to roll back the Miller/Trump immigration agenda. Among them: raising the refugee admissions ceiling from 15,000 to 62,500.
Biden’s rationale for this policy was partly moral, partly practical. Unlike their predecessors, Biden and his immigration advisers recognized that creating more pathways for people to come to the United States legally would actually promote “law and order” and alleviate stress on the immigration system. In a February report to Congress, the State Department said one reason to “increase the overall refugee admissions number” was to “facilitate safe and orderly migration and access to international protection and avert a humanitarian crisis at the U.S. southern border.”
Then, inexplicably, Biden got cold feet.
He delayed signing the paperwork necessary to put his policy into effect, leaving hundreds of vetted refugees in limbo. White House spokespeople could not explain the holdup. Reports leaked that Biden worried about the “optics” of letting in more refugees amid a surge of migration at the southern border, even though he knew the two issues were unrelated.
In other words: Biden seemed to concede that Miller’s propaganda had worked and that the public might view all immigrants as a dangerous, undifferentiated horde of intruders the new administration was failing to contain.
Rather than fighting the confusion and fear Miller had sown, Biden caved. Friday’s White House announcement even invoked the same weaselly excuse Trump officials had used to justify their record-low cap — that it was necessitated by the (irrelevant) border surge.
On Twitter, Miller took a victory lap. He urged Biden to reduce refugee admissions to zero, which he declared would be the “most popular” thing to do.
But Biden and Miller both misread the politics. Biden’s announcement drew immediate, widespread backlash. Perhaps unsurprisingly: Despite Team Trump’s relentless smears of refugees and other immigrants, polls show the public has grown more pro-immigrant in recent years — with support reaching record highs.
Within hours of its initial announcement Friday, the White House backtracked, saying a higher refugee ceiling would be forthcoming. Officials refused to specify the new level and will not commit to the 62,500 Biden previously promised. Biden is leaving his options open — perhaps in case Miller’s political assessment turns out to be right.
It’s not clear why Biden has been so timid. As Biden himself has persuasively argued, admitting more refugees is in the country’s moral and national security interests. What’s more, he was elected on a popular mandate to do it. The White House must exorcise the ghost of Stephen Miller and deliver the agenda that our new, soul-restoring president promised.
***********************
Catherine Rampell Opinion Columnist Washington Post
Thanks, Catherine, for continuing to speak out about the Biden Administration’s ill-informed approach to immigration, racial justice, and human rights — particularly refugee issues! You can read the rest of Catherine’s op-ed at the link.
No such “Victory Laps” for those who worked to get Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas their jobs!
As I’ve pointed out, Miller’s execs and “judges” remain in key positions at Garland’s EOIR as our Immigration Courts continue to fail to provide due process while institutionalizing racial injustice in America, just as Stephen Miller planned it.
Indeed, the racist, misogynist, xenophobic, “worst practices” precedents issued by Trump’s AGs remain in effect under Garland. And, the borders remain closed to most legal asylum seekers in violation of our Constitution, the statute, common sense, and simple human decency.
Equally discouraging is Judge Garland’s apparent indifference to the unparalleled opportunity given him to create a progressive Immigration Judiciary that would actually reflect the humane, due process ideals upon which Biden and Harris campaigned and won the election. Additionally, he could also bring diversity, expertise, and independent progressive thinking to a currently non-diverse judiciary that is often disconnected from both the laws they administer and the stakeholder communities most affected by their decisions, conduct, and attitudes.
I have said many times that Immigration Judges “teach from the bench” every day. The messages being sent and lessons being taught to many of those seeking justice and to their lawyers, basically the “heart and soul” of the next generation of our profession, do not reflect well on the Biden Administration or Judge Garland, nor will they be treated kindly by legal and social historians.
That’s a real shame, because once squandered, the ability to send positive messages about equal justice for all, due process, and respect for human dignity is not easily, if ever, regained!Every case is an opportunity to send a better message; every day the current mess remains in place in our Immigration Courts is a missed opportunity for Judge Garland.
So far, human rights and immigrants’ advocates groups are in a familiar position in a Dem Administration — locked out of the power structure, largely ignored, and treated with indifference bordering on contempt. Strange way to treat those who helped you gain power in the first place!
The good news: the brainpower and talent to force positive change out of incompetent, valueless, and intransigent bureaucracies is still out here in the NDPA. We’ll just have to continue to take the fight to the “powers that be” — in the legal, political, educational, and public opinion arenas until job gets done!
From “Letters From An American:”
