ELECTION 2020 – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸🗽🤯 HISTORY: 100 YEARS AGO, AMERICA TRIED, BUT ULTIMATELY FAILED, TO STAY “WHITE & PROTESTANT” WITH THE 1924 IMMIGRATION ACT — Many Were Hurt Or Died From This Bias In The Interim — Now Trump & The Nativist Right Want To Revive One Of The Worst Eras In U.S. History — Will Indifference & Ignorance From Dems & So-Called “Centrists” Let Them Get Away With Turning Back The Clock? ⏰☠️🤮 — Two Renowned Authors Offer A View Of A Biased, Deadly, & Ultimately Highly Counterproductive Past That Still Poisons Our Politics & Threatens Our Future As A Beacon Of Hope! — PLUS: Kowalski & Chase Take On The “False Scholars” 🤮 Who Disingenuously Attempt To “Glorify” Xenophobia & Racism!🤯

1924 Act — The 1924 Immigration Act vilified, dehumanized, and barred many of those immigrants who have made America great, like Italian Americans being demeaned in this cartoon. Yet, some descendants of those unfairly targeted appear oblivious to the mistakes of the past and willing to inflict the same immoral lies, harm, and suffering on today’s migrants.
IMAGE: Public Realm

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2024/immigration-history-race-quota-progress/

“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”

That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”

Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.

. . . .

The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.

Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.

We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.

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

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/05/24/johnson-reed-act-immigration-quotas-trump/

. . . .

Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”

The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.

But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.

During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.

At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.

But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.

Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books

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

Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.

Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:

And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.

I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.

Well said, Susan!

Susan Gzesh
American scholar, educator, expert, author
PHOTO: U. Of Chicago

I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who are seeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”

It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are — tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!

Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.

Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.

As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.

Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”

U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!

Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.

And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.

That prompted this response from Susan:

Susan Gzesh

11 hrs ago

Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.

I also recently weighed in on the horrors of the 1924 Act in a recent article by Felipe De La Hoz, published in The New Republic: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/05/02/🏴☠%EF%B8%8F🤯🤮-a-century-of-progress-arrested-the-1924-immigration-act-rears-its-ugly-nativist-head-again-felipe-de-la-hoz-in-the-new-repub/.

Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!” We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all! Make the right one!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 IMMIGRATION GURUS DAN KOWALSKI & PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO SLAM NYT’S DAVID LEONHARDT’S DANGEROUS☠️, “TONE DEAF,” IRRESPONSIBLE REPACKAGING OF NATIVIST IMMIGRATION LIES & MYTHS!🤯🤮 — Like The Pandering Nativist Politicos He Echoes, Leonhardt Makes Himself Part Of The Problem, While Ignoring The Truth-Based Solutions Offered By Experts!

Dan writes on Substack:

https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/when-journalists-stray

When Journalists Stray Or: Next Time, David Leonhardt, Check With Experts Before Writing About Immigration

DAN KOWALSKI

MAY 23, 2024

Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.

David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.

Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.

First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.

Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.

Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” ” – Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.

Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.

I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.

[The Comments are open, so fire away!]

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

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

Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:

Re: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/briefing/addressing-immigration.html

by David Leonhardt, May 23, 2024

Before David Leonhardt writes another piece on immigration, he should make sure he has his facts straight. He erroneously claims Biden “changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” Biden did no such thing. What his Justice Department did was overturn a Trump-era ruling attempting to foreclose asylum claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, regardless of their legal merits. That decision was widely criticized, including on your pages in an op-ed I co-authored with Jane Fonda. Attorney General Garland rightfully vacated it, leaving the issue to be resolved by regulations [which to date have not been issued].

Leonhardt is incorrect in his assertion that more “aggressive” moves will mitigate challenges at the border, or score points with voters who overwhelmingly oppose cruel and exclusionary policies. The Senate bill touted as a step in the right direction would have codified failed policies that only create more chaos.

Executive actions reportedly under consideration would similarly exacerbate operational challenges and inevitably get tied up in litigation.

And yes, Republicans’ sabotage of the bill was “transparently cynical.” Just as cynical, however, was the president’s choice to back anti-immigrant legislation he knew was doomed. In their attempts to out-Trump Trump, the president and his allies have betrayed their values and the voters who put them in office.

Karen Musalo

San Francisco, CA

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

Thanks, Dan and Karen! Turning Leonhardt loose on a subject he’s obviously unqualified to write about — “stunning ignorance” in the words of one world-renowned expert — is nothing short of journalistic malpractice on the part of the NYT!

Immigration is a serious topic with life or death implications for migrants and the future of our nation. It deserves serious, informed, professional journalism by experts who are familiar with the plight of forced migrants and the actual legal requirements for asylum and due process as well as the realities of the border and the anti-immigrant absurdities of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts and non-legally-compliant asylum adjudication system.

There are lots of well-qualified folks around who could inform the public. Needless to say Leonhardt is not one of them. Unhappily, few “mainstream media” journalists have the necessary creds. That’s one reason the toxic national debate is so dominated by right wing White Nationalist media spreading lies and myths with little critical pushback from the “MSM.”

Rachel SiegelEconomics Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost — Rachel Siegel
Economics Reporter
Washington Post
PHOTO: WashPost

Ironically, the same day’s Washington Post had an article by Rachel Siegel about how robust immigration of all types has saved the U.S. economy and how many economists believe Trump’s mindless, restrictionist, and likely illegal nativist policies could slow growth, devastate the U.S. workforce, and exacerbate inflation! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/20/trump-immigration-undocumented-economy/. At the same time, he would create chaos and waste billions in public funds.

Recently, I published a number of articles by experts debunking many of the very anti-immigrant myths that Leonhardt disingenuously repeats or enables:

🤯☠️🤮👎 POLITICOS’ “BIPARTISAN” LIES & FEAR MONGERING ABOUT IMMIGRATION MAKES THINGS WORSE! — “Rebuilding the U.S. immigration system to be both functional and humane requires dismissing harmful myths and inflammatory rhetoric in favor of truth and facts. Here’s the truth!” — The Vera Institute Of Justice ⚖️ Reports! 🗽

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 EXPLODING THE NEGATIVE “BIPARTISAN MYTHS” ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS: TRAC’S 10-YR. STUDY SHOWS THAT HUGE MAJORITY (2/3) OF ASYLUM SEEKERS GET FAVORABLE RESULTS IF (A BIG “IF”) THEY CAN GET A DECISION FROM EOIR — Representation Is Critical To Success — Hundreds Of Thousands Who Deserve To Stay Languish In Garland’s Endless Backlogs, While He Continues To Enable “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), The Bane Of Due Process, Fairness, & Efficiency!

⚖️🗽 REV. CRAIG MOUSIN @ LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST URGES US TO TELL THE ADMINISTRATION & CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW ANTI-ASYLUM PROPOSED REGS: “Let’s give courage to those who recognize the benefits of a working asylum system. There are many positive ways to cut down on inefficiencies at the border!”

🇺🇸🗽👍 NICOLE NAREA @ VOX CORRECTS TOXIC “BORDER MYTHS” THAT DRIVE OUR LARGELY ONE-SIDED POLITICAL “DIALOGUE” ON IMMIGRATION!

🤯 MORE BAD ASYLUM POLICIES COMING? — Jeez, Joe, Stop The “Miller Lite” Nativist Nonsense & Fix Your Broken Asylum Adjudication System With Due Process Already! 🤯

🗽⚖️ EXPERT URGES U.S. TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON GENDER-BASED PROTECTION — Current “Any Reason To Deny” Restrictive Interpretations & Actions Are A Threat To Women Everywhere & Unnecessarily Bog Down Already Burdened System With Unnecessary Legal Minutia, Says Professor Karen Musalo In New Article!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/05/03/%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%91%8d-uw-law-professor-erin-barbato-speaks-to-the-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-gutsy-practical-scholar-goes-where-politico/.

In one of many bad moments, Leonhardt uncritically “parrots” the oft-debunked fiction that changes in U.S. immigration policies and “deterrents” like walls, detention, and racially-driven cruelty are primary long-term “drivers” of forced human migration. Undoubtedly, in the complex interrelated world of migration, such policies do have some fairly marginal, largely short-term effects, causing changes in migration paths, adjustments in smuggling methods, changes in smuggling fees, more deaths and unreported irregular entries (when enforcement “gimmicks” are irresponsibly expanded), and enough “statistical variance” to allow proponents of these futile policies to falsely claim “victory” before the system reverts to a new “equilibrium.”

But the truth is inescapable, even if inconvenient for Leonhardt and other dilettantes: Human migration is a complex worldwide phenomenon driven by forces beyond the ability of any single nation, even one as powerful and influential as the U.S., to control by harsh deterrence and restriction, no matter how cruel, deadly, and wasteful. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php (“Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children. . . . No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented [forced migrants] from leaving their homes.”).

As cogently stated by Robert McKee Irwin, an immigration scholar at U.C. Davis:

Research shows that the United States’ immigration policies have never deterred migrants from coming to the country; they have only made the immigration process longer and more difficult.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/curiosity/conversation-immigration-policies-do-not-deter-migrants-coming-us

Indeed, Leonhardt quite disingenuously ignores the fact that misguided “uber enforcement” policies are not only futile, but also increase trauma, suffering, and death for those seeking only to exercise their legal right to seek asylum. See, e.g., Human Rights First, “Trapped, Preyed Upon, and Punished: One Year of The Biden Administration Asylum Ban,” https://link.quorum.us/f/a/guoNlRSTVRVbYZ3FDvlfbA~~/AACYXwA~/RgRoMPIbP0RCaHR0cHM6Ly9odW1hbnJpZ2h0c2ZpcnN0Lm9yZy9ldmVudHMvcmVwb3J0YnJpZWZpbmctMXllYXJhc3lsdW1iYW4vVwNzcGNCCmZGIm1OZko_DEZSEmplbm5pbmdzMTJAYW9sLmNvbVgEAAAAAA~~.

Leonhardt also suggests, quite incorrectly, that Biden’s (limited) attempts to increase pathways for legal immigration and return to the rule of law at the border somehow benefitted and encouraged smugglers and cartels. NOTHING could be more wrong-headed!

It is Trump and his restrictionist allies and enablers who have been a huge boon for human smugglers! As legal pathways are eliminated or unreasonably restricted, the entire “protection” system falls into the hands of smugglers and other trans-border criminal organizations who become “the only game in town” for those seeking protection! Smuggling prices go up and the risks to migrants increase, even as profit margins for the smugglers skyrocket! Equally bad, law enforcement is diverted from real criminals to playing a bogus “numbers game” at the expense of those who seek only to have their life-determining claims heard fairly, timely, and humanely in accordance with the rule of law!

If our country builds a fair, timely, and humane system for considering asylum claims, something that succeeding Administrations have shamefully eschewed, the majority of asylum applicants will use it, which at the same time would allow border law enforcement to focus on real security issues rather than contrived ones. Similarly, more realistic and robust paths for legal immigration, both temporary and long term, will reduce the pressure and incentives for irregular migration. These measures would also tap into the truth about migration being ignored by politicos of both parties:

These [restrictionist] political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.

http://time.com/longform/migrants/

Notably, the Biden parole program criticized by Leonhardt not only has been upheld in Federal Court, but has generally been praised and recognized by experts as a great, largely under appreciated, success in both creating an orderly process and reducing border pressures while benefitting American families and fueling our economy. See, e.g., https://www.fwd.us/news/chnv-parole/. (I’ll admit to not initially being a “fan,” but hey, results matter so I’ve come around). The most legitimate criticism is that it has been too limited both in terms of numbers and nationality restrictions!

Bad journalism promoting myths like those spouted by Leonhard misleads the public and enables politicos to get away with policies that are not only illegal, but often harm and even kill the very vulnerable migrants we are supposed to be protecting, or at the very least treating with fairness, respect, and human dignity. America and the migrants who still (against the odds) see us as a beacon of hope in a cruel world deserve better from the NYT!

There are sane, humane ways of solving complex immigration problems. See, e.g., https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/humane-solutions-work-10-ways-biden-administration-should-reshape-immigration-policy. Ignoring them in favor of fear mongering and cruelty is irresponsible. Or, check out this thoughtful “reality based” proposal by Paul Hunker, until recently a Chief Counsel at ICE Dallas. https://www-dallasnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/22/rethinking-asylum-applicants-should-not-be-released/?outputType=amp.

Professors Erin Barbato, Sarah McKinnon, and Jorge Osorio of the University of Wisconsin – Madison (one of my alma maters) are actually working with forced migrants in the Darien Gap and Mexico to provide better information, care, and alert them to other viable pathways before they reach the U.S. border through their innovative interdisciplinary organization “Migration in the Americas Project.” See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/22/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%F0%9F%91%8F-filling-the-gap-migration-in-the-americas-project-u-w-madison-creative-interdisciplinary-approach-seeks-to-provide-migrants-with-better-info/.

My UW Law ‘73 classmate retired Wisconsin Judge Tom Lister and I have proposed “Judges Without Borders” as a step that should be high on the the bipartisan “immigration to do list” for Congress. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/22/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%F0%9F%91%8F-filling-the-gap-migration-in-the-americas-project-u-w-madison-creative-interdisciplinary-approach-seeks-to-provide-migrants-with-better-info/.

Judge Lister also has a plan to donate patented “healthy, sustainable textile technology” developed during the pandemic that could be used to create good jobs in Mexico and other countries beyond our borders.

Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has developed a “scalable” online training course (“VIISTA Villanova”) that is currently being used to graduate more highly-qualified non-lawyer “Accredited Representatives” to close the burgeoning and critical representation gap in Immigration Court, thus “delivering due process with efficiency.” She believes that with more funding, this program could be “ramped up” to produce 10,000 new Accredited Representatives annually! See, e.g., https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html.

The Sharma-Crawford Clinic in Kansas City, MO, now has sent more than 150 “alums” of its “Immigration Court Trial Litigation College” out into the “real world” where they are defending due process, winning cases, saving lives, and training and inspiring others. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/28/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%97%BD%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%91%8D-report-from-kansas-city-the-sharma-crawford-clinic-immigration-court-trial-advocacy-college-reaches-new-heights/.

With so many brilliant, informed, and involved experts out here, with creative positive ideas for improving immigrant justice and restoring the rule of law, it is very disappointing that the NYT and Leonhardt have chosen to uncritically recycle and repeat cruel, failed, legally problematic proposals by irresponsible politicos that would make things worse. Rather, the media should be consulting the experts actually involved in immigration at the “grass roots level” and pressing politicos on both sides of the aisle and the Administration as to why they aren’t concentrating and investing in humane potential solutions rather than deadly and discredited “deterrence through cruelty!”

As Erica Bryant of the Vera Institute of Justice, someone who, unlike Leonhardt, is actually qualified to write about migration, stated in an article I recently republished:

This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.

🤯☠️🤮👎 POLITICOS’ “BIPARTISAN” LIES & FEAR MONGERING ABOUT IMMIGRATION MAKES THINGS WORSE! — “Rebuilding the U.S. immigration system to be both functional and humane requires dismissing harmful myths and inflammatory rhetoric in favor of truth and facts. Here’s the truth!” — The Vera Institute Of Justice ⚖️ Reports! 🗽

Obviously, neither Leonhardt nor the NYT editors got the message. They should!

Thanks again, Dan and Karen, for being the first to speak out and challenge Leonhardt’s dangerous, misleading, and highly irresponsible nativist nonsense!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-24

⚠️ “SIR JEFFREY” OF THE ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 SAYS THAT SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW BY CONTRAVENING BINDING INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE STANDARDS: “[I]t is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.” — Stop Mocking The Rule Of Law At The Border! ☠️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/proposed-asylum-bar-regs-are-at-odds-with-international-law-and-why-that-matters

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:

Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1

This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.

Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.

Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5

This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.

This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7

Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8

And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9

As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.

So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.

However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.

In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12

I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.

Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.

As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.

Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 Sept. 2003, https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-5-application-exclusion-clauses-article-1f-1951 (emphasis added).

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings, 89 FR 41347 (May 13, 2024), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings.

See, e.g., American Immigration Council, “The Biden Administration’s Proposed Regulations On Asylum Bars: An Analysis,” (May 10, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/biden-administration-proposed-regulation-asylum-bars-analysis; Human Rights First Press Release (May 9, 2024) https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-opposes-new-asylum-proposals-that-would-deny-asylum-hearings/.

6 U.S. 64 (1804).

See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.

Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.

480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).

Id. at 439.

Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.

Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).

Jeffrey S. Chase, “A Wish List for 2021,” https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021 (Dec. 14, 2020).

MAY 16, 2024

Reprinted by permission.

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

The Charming Betsy — The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum!
PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter

Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!

For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.

Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-24

🤯 MORE BAD ASYLUM POLICIES COMING? — Jeez, Joe, Stop The “Miller Lite” Nativist Nonsense & Fix Your Broken Asylum Adjudication System With Due Process Already! 🤯

Come on, Joe, stop the “Miller Lite” nonsense and stand up for the legal rights of asylum seekers!

Republished under license.

From Politico:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865

The Biden administration will propose new changes to the asylum system on Thursday, four people familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

The forthcoming changes will address the stage at which migrants can be found ineligible to apply for and receive asylum. Under the current system, eligibility is determined based on a number of factors during the interview stage — the administration is set to propose applying these standards during the initial screening stage.

. . . .

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

Read the entire article at the link. This system suffers from a chronic lack of asylum expertise, haphazard “any reason to deny” procedures, and an astounding, and deadly, lack of due process, fundamental fairness, and professionalism at all levels! More “summary denial procedures” will greatly aggravate, rather than solve, these problems!

Democrats, Democrats! Your endemic unwillingness and inability to stand up to and aggressively counter GOP nativist lies and fear-mongering on immigration and human rights, despite a huge body of practical expertise to draw upon, could lead to the end of American democracy!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-24

🗽⚖️ EXPERT URGES U.S. TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON GENDER-BASED PROTECTION — Current “Any Reason To Deny” Restrictive Interpretations & Actions Are A Threat To Women Everywhere & Unnecessarily Bog Down Already Burdened System With Unnecessary Legal Minutia, Says Professor Karen Musalo In New Article!

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

A B ST R A CT

The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.

Here’s a link to the article: https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijrl/eeae009/7656821?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=ijrl&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=298cbf81-f24c-455a-9c94-4be57b8c649f

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

Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:

Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)

Along the same line of thinking, in December 2020 I wrote a blog post of my wish list for 2021: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021.

One of the items was as follows:

Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).

As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.

Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.

I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.

I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!

Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.

This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.

At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.

The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.

The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g., https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.

One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-24

🤯 HAD ENOUGH “BORDER BLATHER” FROM GOP NATIVISTS AND THE “WOBBLIES” 🐥 @ THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN? — ⚖️👏🗽 Get The “Real Skinny” As Melissa Del Bosque Interviews Immigration Policy Expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @ The Border Chronicle! — NO, The Prez Can’t “Waive A Magic Wand” 🪄 & “Close The Border!” 🔐

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Policy Counsel
American Immigration Council
Photo: Twitter

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/can-president-biden-really-shut-down?r=1se78m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

From The Border Chronicle:

Last Tuesday, in an interview with Univision’s Enrique Acevedo, President Joe Biden again said he’s considering issuing an executive order to ban asylum at the border. It’s an idea that Biden has floated before as the presidential election season slogs on, and after the bipartisan border bill meltdown in Congress. “We’re examining whether or not I have that power. Some are suggesting that I should just go ahead and try it,” Biden told Acevedo. “And if I get shut down by the court, I get shut down by the court.”

If Biden were to do such a thing, he would rely on Section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives a president the authority to suspend entry or place restrictions on noncitizens.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because Trump tried this several times during his presidency, most notably with the xenophobic Muslim ban. None of them were successful, and they only injected more chaos into an already beleaguered immigration system. So why is Biden proposing this idea now? The Border Chronicle spoke with immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, about Biden’s proposal and what an asylum ban would mean for asylum seekers and border communities.

Biden is floating the idea of issuing an asylum ban. How will this impact people seeking asylum at the border? And can the president actually, you know, just shut down the border?

So I’ll start with the second question. The answer is no. Though there are some authorities that get you somewhere close to it, like Title 42. But it’s important to understand the distinction between the legalistic aspect of issuing an order that further bans crossing the border and actually, effectively shutting down the border.

The best example of issuing an order that I would point to is President Trump’s 212 restriction from November 2018, through February 2021, which suspended the entry of all migrants crossing the border illegally. So we already know what it looks like when a president invokes Section 212 (f) of the INA to suspend the entry of migrants. What it looks like is nothing, because nothing happened. And that is because it is already a violation of immigration law to cross the border without inspection. And so adding another reason, you know why that’s not allowed, doesn’t have any practical impact on people who simply walk across the border or wade through the river or climb over a wall. Because the important question is not whether a person is committing an unlawful act by crossing. The important question is, what can the U.S. government do to respond once a person is on U.S. soil? This is why Section 212 (f) is not a good tool for addressing irregular migration.

The other question is, how does that affect people seeking asylum? Well, not very much. We saw this with the Trump administration, in order to carry out their 212 ban. They had to do two things: They had to issue the proclamation suspending the entry of migrants. And then separately, they passed a regulation saying, we are going to ban asylum to anyone who crosses the border in violation of the proclamation. And it’s that regulation that got struck down as unlawful with a court in California, and then the Ninth Circuit saying and affirming that what that amounted to was a total ban on asylum for people who enter the country illegally, which is simply not permissible, because the INA says people, no matter how they arrive in the United States, may apply for asylum.

Photo courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Share

I think people often forget about this, right? I mean, the law says that you can arrive anywhere at the border and ask for asylum.

You can arrive anywhere, and you can have any status. You can be documented, undocumented, you can enter legally or illegally. The key issue is whether or not you are physically present in the United States. And in that case, then they are allowed to apply for asylum. Now, the Biden administration has imposed an asylum restriction that does target people primarily by how they enter the United States. It is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, and the legality of it is not entirely clear. This is the circumvention of lawful pathways rule from last May. The Biden administration basically argued that it wasn’t a total ban on asylum, because it wasn’t technically based on the manner of entry, so it didn’t violate the INA. I think that was a weak argument, though.

If Biden were to implement the ban, would it impact legal migration?

Probably not at all. This would be a restriction, like the Trump restriction, that would apply only to migrants who cross the border between ports of entry, not those who go to ports of entry. So it would probably have no impact at all on legal migration. The crucial thing to understand is that, as a practical matter, even if they do manage to get an asylum restriction in place, which passes court muster, actually carrying out that restriction on migrants at the border is a very different story. And as we are seeing today, with the circumvention-of-lawful-pathways rule, even if you have banned asylum to nearly everybody crossing the border illegally, that does not actually mean that nearly everyone who crosses the border illegally is restricted from seeking asylum.

What impact could the asylum ban have on border communities? Do you think we’d see a buildup of people on the Mexican side and in camps just sort of waiting and trying to figure out what to do?

Anytime a new policy goes into effect, there’s a wait-and-see period. The Biden administration is already maximizing credible fear interviews. So it wouldn’t have a major change on how people are processed at the border. Other than that, the few 15 percent who were even put through credible fear, they would get denied. But even then, not all of them would get denied because, crucially, an asylum ban is discretionary. It’s just an asylum ban, and there’s more to humanitarian protection than just asylum that migrants can potentially invoke to avoid rapid removal or deportation proceedings. There’s withholding of removal, which is a form of asylum that’s harder to win and offers fewer benefits. And there’s protection under the Convention against Torture. So even today, people who are not eligible for asylum are still managing to pass their fear screenings because they could demonstrate eligibility for withholding or eligibility for protection under the Convention against Torture.

So, realistically speaking, having this asylum ban applied to 100 percent could mean only a few hundred people more a month being ordered removed. Not a huge shift. But for those people, obviously a very, very dramatic change. The question then is, how does the Biden administration talk about this? Does the ban discourage some people from showing up? You know if they falsely believe that this is a major shift? And, of course, how does Mexico respond?

These are the questions that are more important, because with Section 212 (f), I don’t see a way for the president to re-create something like Title 42, where people are simply expelled back across the border without being able to seek asylum. Even the Trump administration acknowledged that that’s not something that they could do with Section 212 (f).

Share

What strategy do you think Biden’s using here by floating this idea? Is it purely for political reasons? Because it’s an election year?

I don’t know. I think there’s a reason that they haven’t done anything yet. And that reason is likely to do with the fact that the lawyers have probably explained to Biden what happened when Trump tried and how unsuccessful that was.

Has the narrative around immigration and the border become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point?

Yes, I do think so. People want an easy solution, you know, build the wall, what have you, and are not acknowledging that this is an issue that the United States has been facing for, in its modern form, for 15 years. If you go back further, 100 years, really, ever since we first made it illegal to cross the border, we’ve been dealing with the challenges of how do you enforce that law? If you go back to the late 19th century, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States created a Bureau of Immigration where they had an entire division whose job it was to try to stop Chinese people coming in from Mexico and Canada. And then, in the early 20th century, the biggest issue at the southern border was Mexican migrants crossing the border without permission. We have a nearly 2,000-mile land border on the south and a 3,000-mile land border on the north. That is a lot of territory to patrol even in a modern world with technology. And the United States has been through a period of high migration for 40 out of the last 50 years. For 40 years it was Mexicans, not entirely, of course, and there were Central Americans during the death squad years of the 1980s, who came to the United States for safety.

But the real shift that’s happened in the last three years has been people from further abroad. And it is just a challenging issue in a world that is more interconnected and hypermobile than at any point in human history. And we have to acknowledge that complexity when we talk about how to address this issue.

I think when people are talking about, you know, just shutting down the border, they forget about the billions in trade and citizens from both sides who are crossing the border every day.

Right, exactly. Oftentimes, people don’t even think about that, you know, most people don’t know that about the half a million people who enter the United States every single day at the southern border. That’s at least 16 million entries a month. And that’s people legally crossing back and forth for school, for work, for commerce, or tourism. So when people say, “Let’s shut down the border,” they mean to migrants, but they’re not thinking about the rest of it. And you have to go back to this question of, is that something the United States can do or wants to do? Let’s say you build a Berlin Wall with, you know, gun towers, and Trump’s moat filled with alligators and shoot migrants in the legs. That probably would deter some people. But then are you a country that is murdering people for trying to seek a better life? Do we want to be that kind of country?

So here’s a really tough question. Do you have any solutions?

An overwhelming majority of people who would like to come to the United States have no legal pathway to do so. Alternate pathway strategies are key. This puts a focus on those who haven’t yet made the decision to leave. I think it’s important to put that in that framework. Because once people have already left, they have sold their house, they’ve abandoned the lease, they, you know, liquidated a lot of their savings, they may have sent a child to a parent or an aunt or uncle. All of which means, at that point, that simply going back becomes much harder.

We also have to address the root causes for why people leave their home countries, which is the hardest to do, of course. This would require the United States to reckon with its own record of foreign policy in Latin America, which is something a lot of politicians do not want to do. Alternate pathways are a good middle ground there, because you can give people an opportunity to come to the United States temporarily and legally without breaking any laws, starving the smugglers of resources. And making it easier for people to get here without falling into the hands of bad actors.

Once people are at the border, though, it’s a different story. There have to be better options for people to cross legally at ports of entry. People still need the opportunity to seek asylum. But there should also be an enforcement component for people who don’t fall within our asylum laws. Right now, the issue is that the system can’t easily distinguish at the border between those who have slam dunk asylum claims from those who just want to come here for a better life. And that is because for years Congress has failed to provide enough resources to the asylum system, humanitarian protection, systems screening—all of that is grievously underfunded and has been for decades.

Given the scale of migration we see today, the system has buckled under its own weight. So, we have to build the system back up and allow it to function. And that means delivering a yes in a reasonable time and delivering a no in a reasonable time regarding asylum claims. You know, it shouldn’t take seven years.

And it’s important to keep reminding people that these issues didn’t just start in 2020 with the Biden administration.

This is not a new issue. And it’s one that requires us to think outside of a partisan lens. This is about U.S. government capacity, the underlying legal structures, and U.S. foreign policy across the region, which has gone on for generations. The underlying legal authorities haven’t changed in decades. And the external circumstances have changed dramatically.

The ability of migrants to get to the border is easier than it has ever been. Flights are cheaper, and people have cell phones and Google Translate. In the past, if you wanted to get to the border, you would need to speak some Spanish, you would need to know someone. Now you can find all the information online. You can find it circulating on WhatsApp, Telegram or TikTok. And once you’re in a foreign country, you know, if you’re an African migrant who speaks French when you come through Mexico, you can use Google Translate to talk to other migrants and find out what they know. And so moving and migrating across the world is easier now than it has ever been. And that’s not necessarily a genie that we can put back in the bottle. And I think people need to acknowledge that and start thinking more broadly about what that means for the modern world.

Support independent journalism from the U.S.-Mexico border. Become a paid subscriber today for just $6 a month or $60 a year.

Subscribed

Thank you for subscribing and supporting The Border Chronicle. Please share this post with your friends and help us become sustainable. We appreciate your support!

Share

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

Undoubtedly, as noted in this interview, “the narrative around immigration and the border [has] become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point.”

The nativist GOP doesn’t want to acknowledge the reality of immigration, including by refugees and asylees, its inevitability, and its proven long-term benefits to America.

By contrast, Dems are afraid of the reality of immigration and too politically timid to stand up for the right to apply for asylum.

What both parties have in common is that they are perfectly willing to accept the benefits of immigration of all types — after all, this is a nation of immigrants — while denying the very humanity and the legal and human rights of those courageous and talented individual immigrants, of all types and statuses, who have built our nation and continue to do so. 🤯🤮👎🏽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

PWS

04-17-24

🤥🤥🤥🤥 GOP BIG LIES ABOUT BIDEN PAROLE PROGRAM EXPOSED — AGAIN! — WashPost Fact Checker Glenn Kessler Gives Nativist Nonsense Spread By Corrupt GOP Politicos 🤮 Four (4) Pinocchios!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/05/taxpayer-dollars-being-used-fly-illegal-aliens-nope/

Kessler writes in WashPost’s “Fact Checker:”

By Glenn Kessler

April 5, 2024 at 3:00 a.m. ET

“Do you support American taxpayer dollars being used to fly illegal immigrants from countries like Venezuela and Haiti into America to be settled in cities and towns near you? If so, then vote against me. Vote no to preserve this practice of using taxpayer dollars to charter planes that move and import thousands of illegal aliens into your states.”

— Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), in a speech on the Senate floor, March 23

“Have you had to cancel or rethink any upcoming summer trips because of high prices? Don’t worry — your taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for illegal immigrants to fly into a town near you.”

— Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, in a post on X, April 2

Two lawmakers from Tennessee have issued misleading statements about a Biden administration program that permitted an increased use of a process known as humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Hagerty offered an amendment to a spending bill — defeated in a party-line vote — that he said would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fly in migrants. Green, on X, posted a Fox News article — headlined “All Senate Dems vote against barring taxpayer funds to fly illegal migrants to US towns” — and made a similar claim.

Under the Biden program, people from these countries who try to cross the border without the proper paperwork are ineligible for parole and subject to expulsion. Instead, before arriving, they must receive authorization to travel to the United States and a statement of financial support from a sponsor.

As of the end of February, the Department of Homeland Security says, more than 386,000 people from those countries had arrived lawfully in the United States and another 19,000 were vetted and authorized to travel. In other words, they are not in the country illegally, despite the rhetoric in the statements.

And beyond the question of whether these immigrants are “illegal,” if you listen to Hagerty and Green, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for their travel. That’s wrong.

. . . .

Four Pinocchios
Source: WashPost

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

Get all the relevant facts in the complete report at the link!

Dems appear “chronically afraid of touting success” when it comes to immigration. These programs show that with leadership, creativity, and coordination, robust, realistic legal immigration programs will garner public support, be cost effective (particularly when compared with expensive, wasteful, ineffective, cruel “detention and deterrence”), take pressure off the border, and maximize America’s ability to capitalize and maximize the benefits of human migration.

Despite the GOP’s disingenuous denial, human migration, including forced migration, is a reality! The countries that eschew “GOP-style” fear-mongering, xenophobia, and nativism to work with and manage human migration in an orderly, fair manner will own the future.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-16-24

☠️⚰️ KILLER POLITICOS GET AWAY WITH MURDER: GOP NATIVISTS, SPINELESS DEM ENABLERS DRIVE DEATH @ THE BORDER: Locals Run Out Of Body Bags & Burial Plots As Gov’s Intentional, Immoral Failure To Properly Process Legal Asylum Seekers Takes Deadly Human Toll!🤮

Angel of Death Artist: Evelyn De Morgan 1880 Public Realm The Angel of Death (“AOD”) comes for another asylum seeker at the border. Biden border policies have created “full employment” for tge AOD! — Angel of Death
Artist: Evelyn De Morgan 1880
Public Realm
The Angel of Death (“AOD”) comes for another asylum seeker at the border. American border policies have needlessly and heedlessly created “full employment” for the AOD!

Arelis R. Hernandez, Mariana Dias, Danielle Volpe report from Eagle Pass, TX for WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2024/texas-border-eagle-pass-migrant-deaths/

. . . .

“If they’ve been in the water awhile, their skin gets pruned and webby and starts to peel off. Their eyes, nose and mouth get swollen,” [Sgt. Aaron] Horta said with a far-off look in his eyes. “For a while, I couldn’t sleep.”

By the end of 2022, Horta had recorded 225 deaths. He said it bothers him when no one claims a body, so he tries to do what he can. This past Thanksgiving, 11-year-old Cristal Tercero Medrano of Nicaragua drowned while wearing a bright-yellow Tweety Bird sweater. Horta worked with Border Patrol agents to identify her. Not long after, they found the girl’s family. Relatives sent in a photo of Cristal wearing the same yellow sweater.

“I get mad, as the father of a little girl,” Horta said. “There should be a process that isn’t the river. It gets to me, but I have to be a professional.”

. . . .

As she swiped through the images in her photo album, she landed on one of a boy in his late teens who had been in the river so long that the current had wiped the features of his face away. In another, the braces inside the mouth of a sun-scorched child were still visible. Behind [Justice of the Peace Jeannie] Smith were rows of folders detailing each death.

“River. River. Ranch. Ranch,” she said as she thumbed through the files. “John Doe. Jane Doe. John Doe. Fetus, the mother gave birth at the river, but the baby didn’t survive. They come from everywhere. I say a little prayer for each one.”

. . . .

“There’s no dignity in this,” [forensic scientist Kate]Spradley said. “But this is what our state deems acceptable.”

. . . .

As for the total fiction that immoral politicos dishonestly present (and the “mainstream media” too often mindlessly and uncritically repeats) that “deterrence — even by death” will stop forced migrants from seeking legal refuge:

[Evelin Gabriella] Gue [of Guatemala] said she and her relatives are still struggling with denial and hoping that the body Texas officials found was not her mother. They want her home, if for nothing more than to be absolutely sure it is her as they grieve. Consular officials have confirmed to the family that it is her body, though they have not submitted DNA for further verification.

Cú Chub’s family is still in debt. To pay off the loan they took out for her to migrate, they may soon make the same journey that cost them their matriarch.

So much for the deadly, irresponsible “bipartisan BS” spouted by politicos who have lost their humanity and their sense of decency!

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

Everyone should read the stomach-churning complete report at the link.

It has lots of dramatic color photography, so folks can get “face to face” with this preventable human carnage. These are the truths and consequences that should — but aren’t — being heard and heeded as border enforcement is discussed.

For the same amount, or likely much less, that governments at all levels are squandering on uncoordinated “proven to fail, illegal, gonzo enforcement and false deterrence,” that enriches cartels and human smugglers while killing legitimate refugees and harming our national psyche, the U.S. could build a first-class, timely, legally compliant, processing and resettlement system for forced migrants here and abroad that would reduce unnecessary border tragedies while capitalizing on the positive power of migration in today’s world.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-14-24

🤐 “McNULTY UKASE” DRAWS HARSH CRITICISM FROM OSC, HILL, CONTINUES TO ROIL GARLAND’S DOJ! 🤯

"Gagged" — “Gagged”
Garland’s DOJ has taken extreme steps to stop Immigration Judges from publicly criticizing his dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Public Domain via Creative Commons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/12/gag-orders-federal-workers-whistleblowers-nda/

Joe Davidson, “Federal Insider,” from p. 2 of today’s WashPost (print edition):

. . . .

In a February email to New York-based immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov, the union president, and Judge Samuel Cole, the union’s executive vice president in Chicago, Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge in the department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said they are prohibited from making public statements “without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary.”

That warning came after Tsankov in October told a Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee hearing that “Democrat and Republican administrations share the failure of the DOJ’s immigration court management,” saying “immigration courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads, and unacceptable backlogs for many years.” Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), NAIJ’s parent union, cited Tsankov’s congressional testimony as an example of giving “judges a voice” that’s now silenced.

McNulty referred to a controversial and hotly contested Trump administration action that led to the decertification of the immigration judges’ union, when she wrote “any bargaining agreement … that may have existed previously is not valid at present.”

On Nov. 2, 2020, the day before Trump, who waged war on federal unions, lost his reelection bid, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that immigration judges are management employees precluded from union representation. That means, according to McNulty, they cannot speak out as union leaders because she considers their association to be a “group” and not a recognized labor organization. IFPTE has asked the Biden administration to reverse the immigration review office’s “inappropriate and misguided application of the agency speaking engagement policy.”

This must be an embarrassment to proudly pro-union President Biden, who reversed other anti-federal labor organization policies put in place under Trump.

McNulty’s action drew heated reaction from three Republicans who often vote against union interests. “The Committee takes seriously the Department’s effort to silence immigration judges,” wrote Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and its immigration subcommittee, respectively. In a letter to the attorney general, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said any effort “to silence immigration judges … is absolutely unacceptable.”

Grassley also noted that McNulty’s order “failed to include the anti-gag provision as required by law.”

That’s a key point in the Office of Special Counsel’s notice.

. . . .

[IFPTE President Matt] Biggs called the Justice Department office’s policy “an outrageous act of censure and an attack on freedom of the press and transparency.”

“Intentionally or not,” he added, the directive “resulted in a not-so-subtle message to rank-and-file immigration judges to think carefully before talking to congressional lawmakers as whistleblowers or otherwise.”

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

Hon. Mimi Tsankov
President, NAIJ — She “blew the whistle” on the continuing “bipartisan due process mess at EOIR” during recent Congressional testimony. Her “DOJ handlers” were not amused!

Read Joe’s complete column at the above link.

Both Parties, Congress, the Executive, and the Article III Courts share blame for the current untenable mess at EOIR, where Due Process, fundamental fairness, quality control, expertise, and practical efficiency are mere afterthoughts, at best! Although there is no sign that it will happen in the near future, the answer is clear and has been for decades: Congress must put aside partisan differences, stop “jockeying for advantage,” and create an independent Article I Immigration Court with a merit-based selection system for judges and professional court administration. Then, let the system work and the chips fall where they may!

You can’t “run” a court system like a “Vatican-style” bureaucratic agency! How many times does that have to be proved for Congress to finally act? Yes, it’s a “big deal!’ Probably the biggest, most widely ignored, most achievable, most important (millions of lives and futures are literally at stake here) piece of solving the “immigration puzzle!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-13-24

🇺🇸🗽 GOP LIES, DEM RETICENCE, OBSCURE A BIDEN IMMIGRATION SUCCESS STORY — Parole Program Works, Models Need & Opportunity For More Legal Immigration Pathways!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-parole-republicans_n_66058245e4b090bf41ba958e

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

While most of the debate over immigration focuses on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of President Joe Biden’s most effective policies so far has occurred elsewhere ― at airports.

For a little over a year, Biden has used what’s called “parole” authority to collectively allow up to 30,000 vetted Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans per month into the country, mostly via air travel, for a temporary two-year window.

The program is based on the authority held by the federal government under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to grant temporary admission to foreigners on a “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” And, the Biden administration touts, it has been accompanied by drops in the number of nationals from each of these countries who’ve crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on foot.

But to hear some right-wingers talk about it, the “CHNV parole” program — the name an acronym for the nationalities it encompasses — is a secret, treasonous endeavor that utilizes government-funded charter flights to transport “illegal” migrants into the United States. None of that is true, but that doesn’t seem to be the point.

“I don’t know of anyone in Congress who knew this!” exclaimed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on a podcast episode, just 14 months after Biden himself announced the CHNV parole program during a public press briefing and despite regular publications of data on the program by the Department of Homeland Security.

The false accusations of secret taxpayer-funded charter flights ferrying unvetted migrants to new lives in the United States plays into Republican attempts to cast immigration issues as a major crisis — and one on which Democrats are failing — ahead of the 2024 election.

. . . .

The precedent to the CHNV parole program was introduced in October 2022, when the Department of Homeland Security created a parole program for Venezuelans that was modeled on the Ukrainian program, requiring applicants to have a U.S.-based sponsor who’s financially able to support them and to pass vetting and background checks. In January 2023, the White House announced the program would expand to include Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua.

Individuals from those four counties who meet the requirements and haven’t attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry are allowed to fly from their home countries into the United States rather than appearing in person at land border crossings.

Since January 2023, more than “386,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole under the parole processes,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection wrote in a February 2024 update.

“There’s no doubt that the CHNV program is by far the largest-scale parole program that any administration has done in decades,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, a research and legal advocacy organization.

And data supports the administration’s claim that the parole program, as part of a larger package, has helped discourage “irregular” migration.

As the Cato Institute reported in September, illegal entries by Venezuelans fell 66% from September 2022 to July 2023 and from December 2022 to July 2023, illegal entries fell 77% for Haitians, 98% for Cubans and 99% for Nicaraguans. Compared with peaks in CHNV numbers in 2021 and 2022, the report added, July 2023 arrests for those four nationalities were down 90%.

“There has not been a single month where unlawful entries of the four countries combined has been above the level it was in December 2022,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

The White House announced the policy as part of a package explicitly meant to “increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry.” The Biden administration grouped the program with others meant to encourage “legal pathways” into the United States ― such as increased refugee admissions and asylum opportunities in other countries ― and alongside harsher border enforcement for migrants who broke the rules.

Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, told HuffPost in a statement that the CHNV parole process was part of a strategy to “combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and [has] kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly.”

And yet many on the right have misrepresented ― or simply lied about ― what the parole program is, playing on anxieties about race and national identity to paint it as part of a supposed scheme by Democrats to overwhelm the country with new residents or somehow displace American citizens.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Beyond the barrage of racially-driven GOP lies, Dems have failed to capitalize on the success of Biden’s efforts and its benefits to the U.S. economy. Significantly, rather than just “moaning and groaning” about the so-called “immigration problem,” the Biden Administration actually took innovative action to address the situation.

The GOP claim that the program is “secret” is a blatant lie! Yet, you would be hard pressed to find any recent examples of Biden, Harris, their campaign officials, or Dem politicos touting the success of the parole program or the critical role of immigration of all types in the continuing strong performance of the U.S. economy.

You would would be much more likely to come across disingenuous statements blaming the GOP for not giving Biden “authority” to close the border, violate human rights, inflict more needless cruelty, and otherwise dehumanize asylum seekers at the Southern Border. In this way, Dems unwisely are playing along with the GOP nativists and giving them “cover” for their lies.

I’ll admit to initially being somewhat skeptical about the parole program, mainly because it could be seen as deflecting attention from much needed reforms and revitalization of existing legal programs for the admission of refugees and asylees that had been intentionally “kneecapped” by the Trump Administration.

Of course, no “pilot program” like this — particularly one with nationality restrictions and somewhat arbitrary numerical limits — can solve overnight problems allowed to fester for years. Yet, the parole program has demonstrated important principles that should form the basis for more durable legislative reforms of our legal immigration system:

Given realistic options, most individuals would choose to be pre-screened and apply from abroad (i/o/w “If you build it, they will use it!”);
Private sponsorships can play a key role in the selection, welcoming, resettlement, and integration process for legal immigration;
Allowing immigrants to work immediately upon arrival — rather than forcing them into an overburdened and over-bureaucratized work authorization process — benefits everyone;
More robust legal immigration opportunities will reduce pressure on the border and keep cases out of the backlogged Immigration Courts.

Rather than being a “false bone of contention” in the “immigration debate,” innovations like the parole program should form an empirical basis for bipartisan legal immigration reform and expansion that will benefit our nation and those who seek to become part of it in the 21st Century.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-08-24

🤮 THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE FEEDING US FEAR-DRIVEN BS 💩 ON THE BORDER (W/O Meaningful Pushback From the Complicit Media) — Get Some Constructive, Practical, Humane Alternatives From Rev. Craig Mousin and NIJC Policy Director Heidi Altman On The “Lawful Assembly” Podcast! 💡🗽😎⚖️

Heidi Altman
Director of Policy
National Immigrant Justice Center
PHOTO: fcnl.org

Craig on Linkedin:

Instead of listening to our two primary presidential contenders vie over which one is tougher on immigration, let’s consider reframing the debate for a meaningful immigration reform that benefits our nation instead of depriving it of resources wasted on ineffective enforcement policies:

Let’s Reshape Immigration Policy

Tweet Share Share

Today we talk about 10 points to reshape and improve immigration policy in the USA. We used the National Immigrant Justice Center’s 10 points as a backdrop for our discussion:

Let’s Reshape Immigration Policy

Lawful Assembly

FOLLOW

SHARE

0:00

38:45

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-reshape-immigration-policy/id1724492762?i=1000648467773

Show Notes

Today we talk about 10 points to reshape and improve immigration policy in the USA. We used the National Immigrant Justice Center’s 10 points as a backdrop for our discussion:

https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/humane-solutions-work-10-ways-biden-administration-should-reshape-immigration-policy

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-29/immigration-crisis-border-migrants-united-states-mexico-election-biden-trump

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

Listen to the podcast and get a copy of NIJC’s “ 10 points” at the above links.

Thanks, Craig, for highlighting the work of my friend and former Georgetown Law colleague Heidi Altman, Director of Policy at NIJC. Heidi is the embodiment of what real leadership, innovation, humane, creative thought on immigration and the border looks like. She stands in dramatic contrast to the pathetic fear mongering (Trump) and fear of standing up for values (Biden) “leadership” coming from our candidates and reflected in the failure of politicos of both parties to embrace humane, cooperative, beneficial solutions for those seeking asylum at the border.

Heidi is a particularly great representative and leadership role model for Women’s History Month.

I had additional thoughts on this podcast:

Better judges, not just more judges. To be effective and efficient, EOIR judges at both levels must be recognized experts in asylum, human rights, and due process who are not afraid to set positive precedents, grant protection to those who qualify under a properly generous interpretation of the law, simplify evidentiary requirements and state them in clear, practical terms, establish and enforce best practices, and steadfastly oppose the political abuse of the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” or as extensions of DHS enforcement. The failure of Garland to clean house at EOIR, particularly the BIA, and of Mayorkas to do likewise at the Asylum Office has been a national disaster driving much of the “disorder at the border.”
Incorporate “Judges Without Borders” into the solutions. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php. It’s a great concept waiting to happen!
Invest in VIISTA Villanova and other innovative programs to expand pro bono and low bono representation. See https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html. Reach beyond lawyers and NGOs to train students, retirees, social justice advocates, and “ordinary citizens” who want to help by becoming “Accredited Representatives” for “Recognized Organizations” and represent asylum seekers before the AO and EOIR. The programs is top-notch, online, and “scalable.” The Biden Administration’s failure to tap into it and “leverage” it is another dramatic failure of leadership.
Better leadership needed in the Biden Administration. As we have seen over the last three years, all the great ideas (and there is a plethora of them) in the world are meaningless without the dynamic, courageous, effective leadership to make it happen! Garland, Mayorkas, the White House Domestic Policy Office, and the Biden Campaign are dramatic negative examples of folks who lack the hands-on expertise, courage, creativity, and skills to lead on effective administrative immigration reform. I endorse Heidi’s proposal to create a White House Task Force. But, without expert, dynamic, empowered leadership, that Task Force will be ineffective. (Take it from me, over 35-years in the USG, I was on lots of “task forces” and other “action/study groups” whose voluminous reports and well-meaning proposals went directly into a dusty file cabinet or paper shredder.) Think Julian Castro, Dean Kevin Johnson, Judge Dana Marks, Professor Karen Musalo, Beatriz Lopez, Professor Michele Pistone, Anna Gallagher, Camille Mackler, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Heidi Altman, Alex Aleinikoff, Mary Meg McCarthy, Paula Fitzgerald, et al — any of these folks, or a combination, or other “battle tested experts” like them would be head and shoulders over the inept gang advising on and “implementing” (and I use this term loosely) immigration policy for the Administration and the campaign. Leadership counts! And, time’s a wasting to start fixing this asylum system before the election!
Acquiescence gets Dems the same place as activist racism. I “get” that the nativist border agenda now being shoved down our throats by both campaigns is driven by GOP fear-mongering and Dem acquiescence. That’s classic Jim Crow! I doubt that every White person south of the Mason-Dixon Line during my youth was overtly racist. Yet, a whole bunch of them were happy to acquiesce in segregation (and worse) because it served their political, social, or business purposes. For example, ”I’ve personally got nothing against Blacks, but if I hired one at my store all my business would go elsewhere.” In calling for “bipartisan” joining with the Trump-generated racist proposal to “close the border,” Biden and many of his supporters are basically endorsing a lawless, cruel, anti-humanitarian program that couldn’t succeed if enacted. Does that he might be doing it as an act of “political strategy,” “shifting the blame,” or “one-upmanship,” rather than “genuine” racism, xenophobia, and hate, like Trump and MAGA nation, somehow make it more palatable? Not to me!
Stop the candidate’s negative campaigning. If Joe can’t think of anything better to say about human rights and the border than to point fingers at the GOP and try and match Trump’s cruelty, lawlessness, and stupidity on the issue, better he say nothing at all.
Don’t get suckered by “whataboutism.” Undoubtedly, there are those in our community genuinely concerned that helping asylum seekers resettle and succeed will deflect resources and attention from existing problems like homelessness and poverty. Nevertheless, few, if any, of my friends and acquaintances who have actually spent their lives, or substantial portions thereof, helping the less fortunate in our communities express this fear. They believe that that if we treat all of our fellow humans as humans, we can expand opportunities and economic activities across the board so that there will be enough for everyone. It’s a derivation of something we say every Sunday at the community church we attend: “All are welcome at Christ’s table.” Also, asylum seekers and other migrants disproportionately give back to communities, particularly low income communities, rural communities, or others in need. By contrast, many of those raising these fears are the same GOP folks who steadfastly want to cut meals for kids, slash after-school programs, defund proven-to-work programs that reduce poverty, and restrict or limit other existing aid programs. It’s not like these folks would “repurpose” any of the very limited funds spent on assisting migrants to helping the homeless or the less fortunate. No, they would almost certainly spend it on more deadly, yet ineffective walls, “civil” prisons, unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, and/or more counterproductive, wasteful, costly border militarization. Don’t get suckered by their “crocodile tears” for the poor and needy!

Contrary to the BS 💩 that is peddled every day by the presidential candidates, spineless politicos of both parties, and the mainstream media, the border is solvable with common sense, humane, innovative legal reforms. More cruel, wasteful, and essentially mindless enforcement and restriction is NOT the answer, nor will it ever be!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-10-24

🤯 CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: BIDEN IS FAR, FAR, FAR BETTER THAN TRUMP ON THE ECONOMY BY ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE — TRUMP’S “PLATFORM” — INCLUDING ATTACKING MIGRANTS — WOULD BOOST INFLATION & IMPEDE ECONOMIC GROWTH! — “Wait until you see what [deporting the workforce] does to produce prices.”

Catherine writes:

. . . .

Perhaps most distressing for Democrats, when survey respondents are asked to rate Biden against the likely GOP presidential nominee, Biden fares poorly.

They remember the economy under Trump as being much better than the economy is today, CBS polling found. The last year of Trump’s presidency, when unemployment reached its highest level since the Great Depression, apparently doesn’t count, or has been forgotten.

Voters are also more than twice as likely to say that Trump’s policies helped them personally as they are about Biden’s work, the New York Times-Siena poll found.

And when asked whether a second term from either candidate would lead prices to go up or down, voters are more than twice as likely to believe Trump would push prices down as they are for Biden, per the CBS poll.

This is astounding. Leaving aside the faulty premise of that question — the overall price level almost never goes down; it merely rises more slowly — Trump’s policy agenda would likely worsen inflation. Why? Consider his main economic proposals:

• An additional 10 percent tax on all global imports, plus 60 percent on Chinese goods. As I’ve cited before, four separate studies found that the costs of Trump’s prior tariffs were borne mostly or entirely by Americans via higher prices.

• A reduction in the labor supply by slashing levels of both illegal and legal immigration. For instance, Trump would not only deport much of the agricultural workforce that’s undocumented; he also plans to dismantle the visa program that allows seasonal agricultural workers to come here legally. Wait until you see what that does to produce prices.

• Expansions of the federal deficit through more unfunded cuts to corporate and capital gains taxes (both of which disproportionately affect higher earners). Federal spending would likely rise, too, based on Trump’s (pre-pandemic) record.

• Kneecapping the Federal Reserve, the politically independent agency tasked with maintaining price stability.

Whatever you think of Biden’s record on inflation — and I have some grumbles, mostly related to Biden’s refusal to reverse his predecessor’s policies — each of Trump’s proposed measures would make inflation worse on the margin.

Don’t take my word for it. Analysts at Evercore ISI, an investment banking firm, recently analyzed the first three items above and forecast that another Trump term (relative to another Biden term) would likely require higher interest rates to counteract inflationary pressures. Likewise, Goldman Sachs Economic Research recently wrote a note to clients warning that the potential politicization of the Fed under another Trump administration would raise inflation risks.

Trump has claimed that economic and financial improvements thus far (including record-high stock markets under Biden) are because of his influence, or at least anticipation of his return. This is ludicrous, yet a large portion of the public seems receptive to this message — amnesiac about how he ended his presidency and blissfully unaware of what he’d do if granted another term.

This should be a wake-up call for journalists, who must do a better job of explaining the policy choices Americans face. It’s also a warning for voters, who must think through those choices more critically.

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

Read Catherine’s full column at the link.

It appears that many of those polled don’t WANT to understand the realities of the economy. They prefer to regurgitate fictional “sound bites” fed to them by MAGA and the media!☹️

That Biden is head and shoulders above Trump on the economy should be little surprise despite “popular myths” and “false narratives” of GOP economic success. Historically, “By virtually every objective measure, Democrats do better. It’s not even close. So why doesn’t America know it?” https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-07-24

🤐 BUSTED! — EOIR SQUELCHES IJS’ UNION — Administration Moves To Silence Outspoken, Uncensored Critic Of Dysfunctional Court System! — NEWS COMES ON HEELS OF BLOCKBUSTER REPORT ON SYSTEMIC RACISM, BIAS, AND HORRIBLY FLAWED JUSTICE AT EOIR!🤯

Censorship — “AG Garland & EOIR Executives holding a strategy session.”
“CENSORSHIP” “PUBLIC SENTIMENT” “NATIONAL CENSOR” “LOCAL CENSOR” “STATE CENSOR” art by Holmet – Motion Picture Magazine (Feb-May 1916) (IA motionpicturemag111moti) (page 151 crop).jpg
Public Domain

Elliot Spagat reports for AP:

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-courts-judges-union-backlog-751f55a0ae60af5c04d6c0ca420d36ae

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 53-year-old union of immigration judges has been ordered to get supervisor approval to speak publicly to anyone outside the Justice Department, potentially quieting a frequent critic of heavily backlogged immigration courts in an election year.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has spoken regularly at public forums, in interviews with reporters and with congressional staff, often to criticize how courts are run. It has advocated for more independence and free legal representation. The National Press Club invited its leaders to a news conference about “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”

The Feb. 15 order requires Justice Department approval “to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews).” Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge, referred to a 2020 decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to strip the union of collective bargaining power and said its earlier rights were “not valid at present.”

The order prohibits speaking to Congress, news media and professional forums without approval, said Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, an umbrella organization that includes the judges’ union. He said the order contradicted President Joe Biden’s “union-friendly” position and vowed to fight it.

“It’s outrageous, it’s un-American,” said Biggs. “Why are they trying to silence these judges?”

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the above link.

Courtesy of my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis, here’s the text of what is being called the “McNulty Ukase:”

From: Chief Immigration Judge, OCIJ (EOIR)
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Tsankov, Mimi (EOIR) ; Cole, Samuel B. (EOIR)
Cc: Weiss, Daniel H (EOIR) ; Luis, Lisa (EOIR) ; Young, Elizabeth L. (EOIR) ; Anderson, Jill (EOIR) <

Subject: Public Engagements and Speaking Requests

Dear Judges Cole and Tsankov:

From recent awareness of your public engagements, I understand you are of the impression that your positions in the group known as the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) permit you to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews) without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary. The agency understands this is a point of contention for you, but any bargaining agreement related to that point that may have existed previously is not valid at present. Please consider this email formal notice that you are subject to the same policies as every EOIR employee. To ensure consistency of application of agency policies—and prevent confusion among our staff—please review the SET policy and work with your supervisor to ensure your compliance with it, effective immediately.

Thank you,

Sheila McNulty

Chief Immigration Judge

Executive Office for Immigration Review • Department of Justice

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

It’s perhaps no surprise. EOIR is a badly failing agency with an incredible ever-growing backlog of over 3 million cases, no plan for reducing it, antiquated procedures, a disturbing number of questionably-qualified judges (many holdovers from the Trump era), grotesque decisional inconsistencies, poor leadership, a tragic record of ignoring experts’ recommendations for improvements, and that produces a steady stream of sloppy, poorly-reasoned, or clearly erroneous decisions on the “nuts and bolts” of asylum and immigration law that are regularly “roasted” by Circuit Judges across the political spectrum.

In this context, their desire to strangle criticism from those actually trying to provide justice and due process, against the odds — the sitting Immigration Judges who see the management and systemic problems on a daily basis — is perhaps understandable, if not defensible.

At least where immigration is involved, the Biden Administration’s rhetoric and promises on being “labor friendly” and supportive of Federal workers is unfortunately reminiscent of its pledge to treat asylum seekers and immigrants fairly and humanely and to distance themselves from the racially-driven xenophobic policies of the Trump Administration.

While the NAIJ may be “gagged,” the fight about working conditions and the unrelenting dysfunction at EOIR is far from over!

Sources close to the NAIJ’s parent union, the IFPTE, tell me that the “campaign to call out this atrocity” is “just getting started.”

In statement issued yesterday, IFPTE President Matt Biggs expressed outrage and raised the possibility that the Administration could face tough Congressional questioning on the gag order, which also applies to communications with legislators and legislative staff:

“Just because a highly partisan decision by the FLRA’s board, that is likely to be reversed, limited NAIJ’s ability to collectively bargain, doesn’t mean that NAIJ and its national union IFPTE can’t meet and confer with the DOJ, provide legal services to our members, have officers serve on professional committees, speak to the media, offer training and other services a union provides,” says Biggs. “In fact, for the past four years, NAIJ, with assistance from IFPTE, has provided all of that. We give judges a voice. Judge Tsankov regularly speaks to reporters and recently testified before Congress. This is an attempt to limit what the press and public know by placing a gag over the mouths of the judges on the front lines. The only thing that has changed in the past four years is an overreach by a federal bureaucrat.”

NAIJ has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the size of the backlog, the need for translators, raised courtroom security concerns and other issues related to immigration adjudication. It has been a strong advocate for judicial independence and questioned why the immigration courts are attached to the Department of Justice, rather than being placed in an independent agency. The National Press Club recently invited both Tsankov and Cole to speak at a news conference on “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”

“We believe that this order and un-American, anti-union act of censorship by McNulty will lead to Congressional hearings,” said Biggs. “Until this matter is resolved, the judges’ national union, IFPTE, will act as the voice for the immigration judges. McNulty may try, but the nation’s immigration judges won’t be silenced.”

As noted by Biggs, over the years, NAIJ leadership has frequently been asked to testify before Congress and meet with staff as an independent counterpoint to the “party line, everything is under control” nonsense that has become a staple of DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in administrations of both parties in dealing with the Hill as the backlog continued to explode in plain view!

Although the Biden Administration has curiously shown little hesitation in throwing asylum seekers, human rights, and advocates who were a key support group in 2020 “under the bus” in an ill-advised attempt to “out-Trump-Trump” on stupidity and inhumanity at the border, the IFPTE could be a different animal. Representing more than 80,000 government professionals, the union endorsed Biden/Harris in 2020.

With a hotly-contested, close election underway, Biden can ill-afford to alienate more key support groups, particularly among organized labor. Why the “geniuses” in the White House and the Biden/Harris Campaign think that going to war with your base is a great, “winning” strategy, is beyond me! Even Donald Trump recognizes the benefit of energizing behind him a loyal and committed (although horribly misguided) “base!”

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

Tellingly, and illustrating this issue’s cosmic importance, the Ohio Immigrant Alliance just released its blockbuster report documenting systemic racism at EOIR entitled “The System Works As Designed: Immigration Law, Courts, & Consequences” —

https://illusionofjustice.org/read/lawcourtsandconsequences

Here’s the Executive Summary:

Executive Summary

This report is based on the experiences of immigrants, lawyers, and immigration court observers, as well as external research. “The System Works as Designed” reveals how U.S. immigration laws, and the courts themselves, were planted on a foundation of white supremacy, power imbalance, and coercive control. For those reasons, they fail to protect human dignity and lives on a daily basis.

While the operations of the immigration courts have frequently been ignored, their outcomes could not be more consequential to immigrants and their loved ones. This report lifts the curtain.

Racism in Immigration Law and Policies

It is clear from the congressional record, and laws themselves, that the Chinese Exclusion Act, Undesirable Aliens Act, Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1924 and 1952, and other laws played on racial and ethnic stereotypes to limit mobility and long-term settlement of non-white immigrants.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 attempted to address some imbalances, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act basically broke the already contradictory set of laws, making them a landmine for immigrants attempting to seek safety or build new lives here. The REAL ID Act and other post-9/11 laws and policies tightened the vise.

Policy choices made by presidents from every modern administration have attempted to coerce, repress, and reject migration, a basic human survival act, instead of building safe paths people can use.

Death Penalty Consequences, Traffic Court Rules

The U.S. immigration courts were designed to offer the illusion of justice, while failing the people they purport to protect. Dysfunctional elements include:

A quasi-judicial structure that answers to the U.S. Attorney General in the Executive Branch and is not an independent judiciary; is blatantly influenced by ideology; and promotes quantity over quality decision making.

Power imbalances, such as the fact that the government is represented by attorneys 100% of the time, while immigrants often argue their cases without a legal guide. Detained immigrants are forced to “attend” their hearings via grainy video feed, while judges and counsel are together in courtrooms miles away. Yet immigration judges frequently deny requests for expert witnesses to appear remotely, citing challenges with communication and credibility. The deck is stacked.

4

Also, by detaining someone in jail for the duration of their civil immigration case, the government makes it harder for them to get a lawyer to help. The government is also using the psychological, financial, and physical toll of detention to try to break someone’s spirits and get them to give up.

Subjective “credibility determinations,” rife for bias and abuse. A case can be denied based on a judge’s feeling about the immigrant’s testimony, not facts. This is the barn door through which all manner of ignorance, bias, and ideology storm in.

Legal landmines make it harder for people who qualify for asylum to receive it, such as the one-year filing deadline; illogical definition of material support to terrorism; and the Biden asylum ban.

Differing standards of accuracy. Immigrants may be furnished interpreters who speak the wrong dialect. Judges and DHS attorneys may make inaccurate statements about an individual’s evidence or the political conditions of their country. The hearing transcripts can be riddled with gaps instead of key facts. Yet life-altering decisions are made based on this record, and an immigrant has little to no opportunity to object, correct, or explain.

Consider the experience of M.D. a Black Mauritanian man seeking asylum in the U.S. after the late 1980s/early 1990s genocide. An immigration judge questioned his credibility because M.D. did not provide “evidence” that he is Black and Fulani, a persecuted group in Mauritania. M.D. addressed the court, speaking in Fulani, and said, “I am the evidence. I speak Fulani and I am Black.”

The English transcript of M.D.’s hearing is riddled with “(unintelligible)” in place of the names of relatives and locations where important events, such as the murder of his father, took place. There was an interpreter in the room who could have spelled the words out to make the record more accurate and credible. Instead, the record shows big holes in place of material facts, while M.D. was accused of not providing “proof” that he is Black, deemed not credible, denied asylum.

In another case, a Black man seeking asylum was found “not credible” because his interpreter first used the word “canoe” when describing his method of escape, and later said “little boat.” But in his language and, one can argue, in common English, they are the same thing.

Situations like these, memorialized in the case record, are carried into the appeals process where rehearings typically do not take place, compounding the injustices of these mistakes.

Many of the report’s observations echo some aspects my own writings and public speeches over the years since I retired from the bench in June 2016. For example, here’s my speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW“ from from an FBA Conference in Austin, Texas in May 2019:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FBA-Austin-Central-America-—-Intro.docx

While I was speaking during the Trump Administration, sadly, many of my observations remain equally true today, as the Biden Administration and AG Garland have quite inexcusably failed to rise to the occasion by instituting long-overdue due process and quality control reforms at EOIR. Yet, I am struck by how even then, as today, I found reasons to continue to be proud of the accomplishments of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”) and to urge others to continue to believe that the “light of due process will eventually be relit” at EOIR and that history will deal harshly with the xenophobic urges and anti-asylum attitudes that too often drive policy in administrations of both parties:

Today, the Immigration Courts have become an openly hostile environment for asylum seekers and their representatives. Sadly, the Article III Courts aren’t much better, having largely “swallowed the whistle” on a system that every day blatantly mocks due process, the rule of law, and fair and unbiased treatment of asylum seekers. Many Article IIIs continue to “defer” to decisions produced not by “expert tribunals,” but by a fraudulent court system that has replaced due process with expediency and enforcement.

But, all is not lost. Even in this toxic environment, there are pockets of judges at both the administrative and Article III level who still care about their oaths of office and are continuing to grant asylum to battered women and other refugees from the Northern Triangle. Indeed, I have been told that more than 60 gender-based cases from Northern Triangle countries have been granted by Immigration Judges across the country even after Sessions’s blatant attempt to snuff out protection for battered women in Matter of A-B-. Along with dependent family members, that means hundreds of human lives of refugees saved, even in the current age.

Also significantly, by continuing to insist that asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle be treated fairly in accordance with due process and the applicable laws, we are making a record of the current legal and constitutional travesty for future generations. We are building a case for an independent Article I Immigration Court, for resisting nativist calls for further legislative restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, and for eventually holding the modern day “Jim Crows” who have abused the rule of law and human values, at all levels of our system, accountable, before the “court of history” if nothing else!

Eventually, we will return to the evolving protection of asylum seekers in the pre-2014 era and eradicate the damage to our fundamental values and the rule of law being done by this Administration’s nativist, White Nationalist policies. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about.

That brings me back to two of my “key takeaways” from the Ohio Immigrant Alliance Report.

First: “Withholding is a true limbo status, though better than being sent back to certain death.” Skillfully and aggressively using the system to save lives, in any way possible, is job one. A life saved is always a victory!

Second, as the report concludes:

Solutions exist, but they require policymakers and legislators to listen to the people with direct, personal experience. Ramata, cited earlier in this report, suggests quicker approval of cases found credible at the outset. Aliou wants judges to put more stock in migrants’ testimony, understanding that persecuting governments are not credible sources about their own abuse. Jennifer, one of the immigration lawyers we interviewed, suggested that Black immigrant organizations and the American Immigration Lawyers Association be involved in crafting a new direction, citing their extensive expertise with how the system works—and fails people.

Bill, another immigration lawyer interviewed for this report, suggests taking a page from the refugee resettlement program when it comes to verifying facts about a case. “Social workers and private investigators [could] interview people and research documents and try to … verify whether [they’re] telling the truth or not,” he said. Bill suggests employment counselors, ESL teachers, and others with specialized expertise could also assist in the processing of cases.

Most importantly, the asylum and immigration system must be reoriented toward prioritizing safety and resettlement, rather than deportation as the default outcome. The forthcoming report, “Behind Closed Doors: Black Migrants and the Hidden Injustices of US Immigration Courts,” will explore these and other solutions.

As I have observed many times, despite the “national BS” on asylum and immigration being traded by Trump and Biden, and the legislative gridlock, there are still plenty of readily available, non-legislative solutions out there that would dramatically improve due process, justice, and the life-saving capacity of the EOIR system. While no single one of them is a “silver bullet” that would solve all problems overnight, each is an important step in the right direction. Taken together, they would substantially improve the quality and quality of justice overall in our U.S. legal system and, perhaps, in the process, save our republic from demise.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-06-24

This article has been revised to include an excerpt from the IFPTE press release.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.

🏴‍☠️🤮 TRUMP’S & MILLER’S “ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY” IRREPARABLY DAMAGED VULNERABLE FAMILIES & THE AMERICAN PSYCHE — We Can’t Allow Them To Do It Again!

Piper S. French
Editor & Writer
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://apple.news/AMAcNuZxJRTmYkzleEZLNXw

Piper French reports for Intelligencer via Apple News:

Nilu Chadwick recognizes some of the children’s names right away. Chadwick, a lawyer for Kids in Need of Defense, has spent the past five years poring over lists of families separated under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy whose cases have yet to be resolved. Some of the children’s names stand out because she crossed paths with them back in 2018, when she represented them at their immigration hearings after they were torn from their parents’ side at the southern border. Those names always remind her of what she witnessed that year. The eerie silence of the children’s shelters. The kids so young that they couldn’t even explain who they were or where they came from. The hearing she had to pause in order to soothe a client with a nursery rhyme. Then there are the names that have simply grown familiar through repetition: the children whose cases appeared on the lists years ago and remain open.

The process of reunifying families separated under “zero tolerance” began in June 2018, two months after the policy was officially implemented. The ACLU had filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of separated families, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and during the litigation, a federal judge halted Trump’s policy and ordered its victims reunified within 30 days. Some of these reunifications were relatively straightforward. The government had records of around 2,800 separated families, and most of those parents and children were still in the U.S. — maybe they’d been sent to separate ICE facilities or the parents were in detention while their children had been placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. But for about 470 families, the parents had already been deported. When the Trump administration declined to track them down, Lee Gelernt, the head lawyer for the plaintiffs, stood up in court and said the ACLU would do it. A steering committee was put together comprising a team from the New York law firm Paul, Weiss and representatives from three NGOs, including Kids in Need of Defense and the organization Justice in Motion. “Little did I know what we were taking responsibility for,” Gelernt told me.

The first hurdle the committee faced was the total disorganization with which “zero tolerance” had been implemented. “There was no intention of reuniting families, and so they didn’t design the system to be able to keep track,” Nan Schivone, Justice in Motion’s legal director, told me. The agencies involved — Customs and Border Protection, which took families into custody; ICE, which oversaw their detainment; the ORR, which was responsible for the separated children — didn’t have a comprehensive system to share data with one another, nor did they always keep records linking parents with their children. If children were released from ORR custody into the care of family or friends, the government did limited follow-up. “We give you a luggage tag for your luggage,” said Gisela Voss, a former board member of Together & Free, which supports families seeking asylum. “We separated parents from their kids and didn’t give them, like, a number.”

It took two months, until August 2018, for the administration to provide the steering committee with the phone numbers of the deported parents; a quarter of the numbers were missing. The committee began its search, making calls and performing social-media investigations. Then, in January 2019, the HHS Office of Inspector General revealed that more families had been separated than the Trump administration had previously disclosed. Nine months later, the Justice Department finally produced those names. There were 1,500 of them, and the vast majority of the parents had been deported.

. . . .

But the more that people who have dedicated their lives to this task continue to search, the more it becomes apparent that there will never be a clean resolution. There will always be another family. They know, too, that reunification solves only one problem. Families may be together again, but whether they will ever be whole is another question entirely.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

No accountability whatsoever for Trump, Miller, Sessions and the other “human rights criminals” responsible for this. As is all too common in immigration and human rights “fails” by our immigration bureaucracy, the private, pro bono and NGO sectors are left to pick up the pieces after having to fight to uphold the rule of law.

The real story here is the blatant failure of our Government to uphold the rule of law for those seeking legal refugee and the irreparable effects of that failure. Somehow we have allowed politicos and the media to reverse that story line!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-24

🇺🇸🗽 BIDEN MUST STOP FUELING THE XENOPHOBIC NARRATIVE ABOUT THE BORDER, SAYS MIGRATION EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO @ LA TIMES — “[T]hat narrative is false: The border is manageable, and rather than being a danger to Americans, immigrants are a net positive economically and socially.”

Karen writes in the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9f2230a5-0663-484d-ae19-a64bb095d7ac

Multiple news sources report that President Biden is considering implementing executive action to try to close the U.S.-Mexico border, including to asylum seekers. It would be an extreme move, and a violation of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the country’s international obligation to protect those fleeing persecution. Only one other president — Donald Trump — has blatantly breached that obligation before. With the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext, Trump invoked Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which allowed him to curb migration in the name of public health.

Biden, who came into office harshly criticizing his predecessor’s anti-immigrant policies, now seems poised to resurrect them. Administration sources concede that the president’s border plans are driven by politics, the belief that the immigration situation is “an election liability.”

This view is no surprise. We’ve been fed a narrative that the border is in crisis, overwhelmed by an unprecedented number of immigrants who pose a grave danger to the health and safety of the nation. But that narrative is false: The border is manageable, and rather than being a danger to Americans, immigrants are a net positive economically and socially.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link. Thanks for speaking out, Karen!

If only Biden & Harris would listen to migration experts rather than those who erroneously claim that violating asylum laws and stomping on human and civil rights is a “winning political strategy!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-92-24

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan writes on Substack:

Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Kessler writes in WashPost’s “Fact Checker:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Arelis R. Hernandez, Mariana Dias, Danielle Volpe report from Eagle Pass, TX for WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Joe Davidson, “Federal Insider,” from p. 2 of today’s WashPost (print edition):

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Craig on Linkedin:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Catherine writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Elliot Spagat reports for AP:

Here’s the Executive Summary:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Piper French reports for Intelligencer via Apple News:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Karen writes in the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: