Political Correctness – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? — 9th CIRCUIT JUDGES ASSIST REGIME’S AGENTS IN COMMITTING “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” MERE YARDS FROM THE BORDER! — NDPA Leader Jodi Goodwin, Esquire, Speaks Out: “I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me. I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.”

Jodi Goodwin, Esquire
Immigration Attorney
Harlingen, TX

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/remain-in-mexico-policy-immigrant-kids_n_5deeb143e4b00563b8560c69

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

A few times a week, attorney Jodi Goodwin walks across the bridge from Brownsville, Texas, to a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico, to meet with asylum-seekers. Her clients are among the more than 2,500 immigrants crammed into tents while they wait for U.S. immigration hearings ― often stuck for months in dirty and dangerous conditions.

The forced return to Mexico of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. is one of President Donald Trump’s most inhumane immigration policies, yet it hasn’t received nearly the attention that his family separation and prolonged detention practices have.

Since January, under Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” initiative ― also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) ― the U.S. government has sent at least 54,000 immigrants to wait for their court dates in Mexican border towns. Instead of staying with relatives in the U.S., families are sleeping in tents for up to eight months, in unprotected areas where infections spread within crowded quarters and cartel kidnappings are commonplace. Family separation ended a year ago. But Trump’s mistreatment of asylum-seekers continues in a different form.

Some parents are so desperate that they’ve resorted to sending their children across the bridge alone, since unaccompanied kids who arrive at the border cannot be turned away under MPP. Since October, at least 135 children have crossed back into the U.S. by themselves after being sent to wait in Mexico with their parents, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In Mexico, many of these migrants don’t have access to lawyers and are forced to plead their cases in makeshift tent courts set up along the U.S. border where overwhelmed judges conduct hearings via video teleconference. The courts have limited public access ― lawyers and translators say that they have been barred from attending hearings. Migrants’ advocates argue that the tent courts violate due process, and immigrant rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the use of videoconferencing.

Goodwin, who has 42 clients, said there is a serious shortage of lawyers willing to represent immigrants staying in another country where crime is rife. She spoke with HuffPost about why the Remain in Mexico policy is even more traumatic than separating thousands of families and why it hasn’t sparked public outrage.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Jodi Goodwin (center) at the refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico.

HuffPost: Immigrant parents forced to wait in Mexico are making the heart-wrenching choice to send their kids to the U.S. alone. What are the conditions like at the camp in Matamoros?

Jodi Goodwin: It smells like urine and feces. There’s not enough sanitation. There’s 10 port-a-potties for thousands of people. Up until recently, there was no potable water available at all. People were bathing in the Rio Grande river, getting sick and, in some cases, drowning. People were seriously dehydrated.

The camp sounds completely unfitting for any human being, let alone children.

It’s a horrific situation to put families in. It’s great to live in a tent for the weekend when you’re going to the lake. It’s not great to live in a tent for months at a time where you don’t have basic necessities.

Are kids getting sick?

The kids are sick every day. I’ve seen all kinds of respiratory illnesses and digestive illnesses. I’ve seen chronic illnesses like epilepsy. I saw a baby that appeared to have sepsis who was forced to wait on the bridge for more than three hours before being taken to a hospital.

And what about the kidnappings? Have you heard of families being taken by cartel members who then try and extort an immigrant’s U.S. relatives for money?

About half of the people I’ve spoken to in Mexico have been kidnapped. The cartel knows if they can grab an immigrant, they’re likely to be able to work out a ransom. If they don’t, then they just kill them.

Any specific examples?

I dealt with one case where a mom from El Salvador and her 4-year-old son were kidnapped within an hour of being sent back to Mexico under MPP. They were taken for eight days before her brother in the U.S. paid the kidnappers $7,000.

The lady was terrified. She was sleep-deprived, food-deprived and water-deprived. She said that the people who had kidnapped her were extremely violent and hit her kid. They were drinking alcohol and raping people at a stash house where several other people were being held.

LOREN ELLIOTT / REUTERS

Migrants, most of them asylum-seekers sent back to Mexico from the U.S. under the “Remain in Mexico” program, occupy a makeshift encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, on Oc. 28, 2019.

The last time we spoke, you were on the frontlines of family separation, visiting detention centers where mothers were hysterically crying after being ripped apart from their children. How does the trauma of MPP compare, particularly for parents who are sending their kids across the border alone?

It’s way worse. I can’t with any confidence say that they will ever see their children again.

Why not?

I knew there were legal ways to get out of family separation. We were able to talk with our clients and didn’t have to go off to another country. And for those parents who got through their interviews or their court hearings, we were able to get them back with their kids.

With MPP, the assault is not only on human rights but also on due process within the court systems, which has completely hijacked the ability to be able to fix things. The parents can’t even get into the country to try to reunify with their kids.

Nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Do you think a similar number of families will be ripped apart because of Remain in Mexico?

It could be more. Over 55,000 people have been sent back to Mexico. I’ve talked to so many parents who have sent their kids across. It’s a heart-wrenching decision process that they go through. How do you give up your baby?

It reminds me of Jewish parents who were captives in Nazi Germany and had to convince their kids to get on a different train or go in a different line to save their own lives.

Have you witnessed these separations firsthand?

In November I saw a little boy and his 4-year-old sister sent across the bridge with an older child, who was about 14 years old. The teenager carried the baby boy, who still had a pacifier in his mouth, and the girl was holding onto the older kid’s belt loop.

I was standing on the bridge between Matamoros and the U.S. and I turned around to look down at the bank of the Rio Grande river. Every single parent who has sent their kid to cross tells me the same thing: As soon as they say goodbye and hug their kids, they run to the bank to watch them. [Her voice breaks] I knew there was somebody probably standing on that bank hoping those kids made it across.

Do you still think about those kids?

Oh yeah. The green binky that the little baby was sucking on is knitted in my mind.

VERONICA CARDENAS / REUTERS

The Mexican National Guard patrols an encampment where asylum-seekers live as their tents are relocated from the plaza to near the banks of the Rio Grande in Matamoros on Dec. 7, 2019.

You’ve been working hundreds of hours a month to try and help people stranded in Matamoros. This work must take a toll on you personally.

I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me.

I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.

Family separation resulted in massive outcry from the public, which eventually pressured the government to end the zero-tolerance policy. Why is MPP not getting the same attention?

There is no public outrage because it’s not happening on our soil. It’s happening literally 10 feet from the turnstile to come to the U.S. But because it’s out of sight and out of mind, there is no outrage. What ended family separation was public outrage. It had nothing to do with lawsuits. It had everything to do with shame, shame, shame.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

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

I’m with you, Jodi! Thanks for your dedication to justice for the most vulnerable!

What’s wrong with this scenario: life-tenured Federal Judges who won’t stand up for the rule of law, Due Process, and Equal Protection in the face of an arrogantly and overtly lawless White Nationalist Regime; DOJ and other U.S. Government lawyers who defend immoral and disingenuous positions in Federal Court, often, as in the Census Case and the DACA Case using pretextual rationales and knowingly false information; dehumanization, with overwhelming racial and religious overtones, of those who deserve our protection and rely on our sense of fairness; undercutting, mistreating and humiliating the brave lawyers like Jodi who are standing up for justice in the face of tyranny; GOP legislators who are lawyers defending Trump’s mockery of the Constitution, human decency, and the rule of law and knowingly and defiantly spreading Putin’s false narratives.

Obviously, there has been a severe failure in our legal and ethical education programs and our criteria for Federal Judicial selections, particularly at the higher levels, and particularly with respect to the critical characteristic of courage. Too many “go alongs to get alongs!” I can only hope that our republic survives long enough to reform and correct these existential defects that now threaten to bring us all down.

Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s our humanity?

We should also remember that many asylum seekers from Africa, who face extreme danger in Mexico, are also being targeted (“shithole countries?”) and abused as part of the Regime’s judicially-enabled, racially driven, anti-asylum, anti-rule-of-law antics at the Southern Border. https://apple.news/AyYSWSXNfSdOm63skxWaUTQ

Also, morally corrupt Trump Regime officials continued to tout “Crimes Against Humanity” as an acceptable approach to border enforcement and “reducing apprehensions!” Will machine gun turrets be next on their list? Will Article III Judges give that their “A-OK?”

We’re actually paying Article III Federal Judges who are knowingly and intentionally furthering “Crimes Against Humanity.” Totally outrageous!

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-10-19

STEPHEN MILLER’S OVERT WHITE SUPREMACY ISN’T “IN THE MARGINS” OF THE GOP — IT IS THE GOP! — That’s Why He Isn’t Going Anywhere & Even If He Did His Fascist Message Of Hate Would Remain The Face Of Today’s GOP! — “Republican voters made Trump the white-supremacist-in-chief.“

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/16/stephen-miller-white-supremacy-republican-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

By Cas Mudde for The Guardian:

This week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published a bombshell article revealing troubling emails that White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller sent to editors at Breitbart News, the far-right media outlet previously led by Steve Bannon.

Marie Yovanovitch says state department fails to fight ‘corrupt interests’

The emails, which were leaked by former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh and predate Miller’s period in the White House, show Miller’s obsession with immigration and his seemingly successful attempts to get Breitbart editors to write anti-immigration stories, some of which were based on openly white nationalist sources like American Renaissance and V-Dare.

The widespread public outrage in response to the revelations is understandable. Miller is the longest serving senior advisor to President Trump who is not related to the president, and is believed to be the architect of the White House’s draconian anti-immigration policies, which doesn’t just target “illegal immigration” but also aims to return to the country to the infamously racist immigration policy of the early 20th century.

In its response to the leak, the White House tried to discredit the source, SPLC, which has had some internal and external problems recently, but is overall a very reliable authority on the US far right (full disclaimer: I regularly collaborate with the SPLC). One White House spokesperson went full “alternative facts” by accusing SPLC of antisemitism, because Miller is Jewish. By doing so, the White House displayed a complete lack of understanding about what antisemitism is, which is no surprise, given that Trump considers himself “the least antisemitic person you’ve ever seen”.

The Democratic responses were predictable and swift as well. Of all the 2020 candidates, Julian Castro went the furthest in condemning Miller – he called him a “neo-Nazi” – but all agreed that he should resign from the White House.

But would Miller’s resignation change anything? While Miller might be behind the concrete policies that harm immigrants, he is not the main white supremacist in the White House. And Trump can easily find someone else to do Miller’s work, particularly now that almost the whole Republican party has fallen in line with their president.

It also externalizes white supremacy, as if it lives in the margins. But it has been hiding in plain sight within the Republican Party for decades. Miller wrote the emails to Breitbart when he was still an aide to Senator Jeff Sessions, who has been a consistent voice of white supremacy in Congress since 1997. And the Alabama Senator was not alone in Congress either. Representative Steve King has been the most open and unapologetic voice for the cause since 2003. Others, like representatives Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Tom Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher, might not be as open in their support, but they all encourage white nationalism to varying degrees.

But white supremacy in the Republican party is not limited to just these individual congressmen and women. It runs much deeper than them. White supremacy was at the core of the “Southern Strategy”, dating back to the unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, which was formative for the future conservative movement. Perfected by President Richard Nixon, with the help of speechwriter Pat Buchanan, dog whistles to white supremacy have been at the heart of virtually every Republican campaign since the 1970s.

Talking of Buchanan, more than 25 years ago he gave his now famous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican convention. While the term has become mainly linked to the religious right, Buchanan is at least as much a white supremacist as a Christian fundamentalist. In many ways, he is the intellectual father of the Trump administration, personifying Mike Pence and Donald Trump in one.

This is why calling for Stephen Miller’s resignation wouldn’t change much. Neither Miller nor Bannon “made” Trump the white-supremacist-in-chief. And Trump is not the only problem either, as Joe Biden seems to believe. He won the Republican primaries, and presidential elections, not despite white supremacy but because of it.

In short, it is time for Democrats to face and name the ugly truth: the Grand Old Party is a party steeped in white supremacy. It is the basis of its electoral support and this will not change in the near future. By focusing on the most brazen examples, like Stephen Miller, Democrats strengthen the misguided belief that the Republican party is a good party with some bad apples. Ultimately, this will help the Republicans more than the Democrats.

Cas Mudde is a Guardian US columnist and the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia

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

Mudde’s conclusion is worth repeating:

In short, it is time for Democrats to face and name the ugly truth: the Grand Old Party is a party steeped in white supremacy. It is the basis of its electoral support and this will not change in the near future. By focusing on the most brazen examples, like Stephen Miller, Democrats strengthen the misguided belief that the Republican party is a good party with some bad apples. Ultimately, this will help the Republicans more than the Democrats.

Let’s take a real life example. Joe Biden clearly would be a huge upgrade over Donald Trump as President, whether or not he’s your “first choice.” But, one of Biden’s “selling points” has been his long experience in the Senate and his good working relationships and mutual respect with GOP Senators.

Yet recently, Trump has shamelessly slandered and blatantly lied about Biden while besmirching his character. This is all without a scrap of actual supporting evidence.

Under the circumstances, you would certainly expect some of Biden’s long time GOP colleagues to speak up in his defense and vouch for his character. Almost all Republicans know that Trump is a chronic liar and everything he says about Biden is untrue.

Yet, not a murmur of support or sympathy from the GOP for their “old buddy Joe.” That would cast at least some doubt on Biden’s optimism that he could work successfully with Mitch McConnell and the GOP in the Senate to get bipartisan things done for the country.

More likely, the GOP would treat him exactly like they treated his former “boss” President Obama. That means opposing and mischaracterizing everything, regardless of merit, in an attempt to make Biden a one-term President and to play to the “Trump base.”

Even if Trump loses the next election (by no means a given), his white supremacist base will remain critical to the GOP’s future. Without its enthusiastic support, they become perhaps a “20% party” until they finally cease to exist.

With it, the GOP has a decent chance of imposing some semblance of minority rule over the majority of Americans for decades to come, even if they don’t always control the White House. Given the GOP’s strength in lesser populated states which are “over represented” in the Senate, they also have a decent shot at indefinitely controlling the Senate and therefore the appointments process as well as the judiciary.

Consequently, Trump or no Trump, there is little incentive for the GOP to abandon white supremacy as their fundamental identity. Perhaps that counsels a Democratic strategy of less hand wringing about how to reach out to GOP voters and more of a focus on how to get new Democratic voters registered, get out the Democratic vote, hold the party together (note that the GOP’s “hard right” under Trump didn’t by any means split the party as many pundits had predicted), and use their potential numerical advantages, their wider appeal to a diverse America, and their more positive message to restore at least some semblance of majority rule.

Recapturing the White House certainly won’t solve all of America’s problems. But, it’s an important start.

It could be America’s last chance for survival as a Constitutional Republic.

PWS

11-19-19

BILL McKIBBEN @ TIME: Imagine A World Not Led By Trump & His Fellow GOP Climate Change Deniers! — Humanity Would Have At Least A “Fighting Chance” For Survival!

https://time.com/5669022/climate-change-2050/

BY BILL MCKIBBEN SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

IDEAS

McKibben is the author of Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? and a co-founder of 350.org

Let’s imagine for a moment that we’ve reached the middle of the century. It’s 2050, and we have a moment to reflect—the climate fight remains the consuming battle of our age, but its most intense phase may be in our rearview mirror. And so we can look back to see how we might have managed to dramatically change our society and economy. We had no other choice.

There was a point after 2020 when we began to collectively realize a few basic things.

One, we weren’t getting out of this unscathed. Climate change, even in its early stages, had begun to hurt: watching a California city literally called Paradise turn into hell inside of two hours made it clear that all Americans were at risk. When you breathe wildfire smoke half the summer in your Silicon Valley fortress, or struggle to find insurance for your Florida beach house, doubt creeps in even for those who imagined they were immune.

Two, there were actually some solutions. By 2020, renewable energy was the cheapest way to generate electricity around the planet—in fact, the cheapest way there ever had been. The engineers had done their job, taking sun and wind from quirky backyard DIY projects to cutting-edge technology. Batteries had plummeted down the same cost curve as renewable energy, so the fact that the sun went down at night no longer mattered quite so much—you could store its rays to use later.

And the third realization? People began to understand that the biggest reason we weren’t making full, fast use of these new technologies was the political power of the fossil-fuel industry. Investigative journalists had exposed its three-decade campaign of denial and disinformation, and attorneys general and plaintiffs’ lawyers were beginning to pick them apart. And just in time.

These trends first intersected powerfully on Election Day in 2020. The Halloween hurricane that crashed into the Gulf didn’t just take hundreds of lives and thousands of homes; it revealed a political seam that had begun to show up in polling data a year or two before. Of all the issues that made suburban Americans—women especially—uneasy about President Trump, his stance on climate change was near the top. What had seemed a modest lead for the Democratic challenger widened during the last week of the campaign as damage reports from Louisiana and Mississippi rolled in; on election night it turned into a rout, and the analysts insisted that an underappreciated “green vote” had played a vital part—after all, actual green parties in Canada, the U.K. and much of continental Europe were also outperforming expectations. Young voters were turning out in record numbers: the Greta Generation, as punsters were calling them, made climate change their No. 1 issue.

And when the new President took the oath of office, she didn’t disappoint. In her Inaugural Address, she pledged to immediately put America back in the Paris Agreement—but then she added, “We know by now that Paris is nowhere near enough. Even if all the countries followed all the promises made in that accord, the temperature would still rise more than 3°C (5°F or 6°F). If we let the planet warm that much, we won’t be able to have civilizations like the ones we’re used to. So we’re going to make the change we need to make, and we’re going to make them fast.”

Fast, of course, is a word that doesn’t really apply to Capitol Hill or most of the world’s other Congresses, Parliaments and Central Committees. It took constant demonstrations from ever larger groups like Extinction Rebellion, and led by young activists especially from the communities suffering the most, to ensure that politicians feared an angry electorate more than an angry carbon lobby. But America, which historically had poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other nation, did cease blocking progress. With the filibuster removed, the Senate passed—by the narrowest of margins—one bill after another to end subsidies for coal and gas and oil companies, began to tax the carbon they produced, and acted on the basic principles of the Green New Deal: funding the rapid deployment of solar panels and wind turbines, guaranteeing federal jobs for anyone who wanted that work, and putting an end to drilling and mining on federal lands.

Since those public lands trailed only China, the U.S., India and Russia as a source of carbon, that was a big deal. Its biggest impact was on Wall Street, where investors began to treat fossil-fuel stocks with increasing disdain. When BlackRock, the biggest money manager in the world, cleaned its basic passive index fund of coal, oil and gas stocks, the companies were essentially rendered off-limits to normal investors. As protesters began cutting up their Chase bank cards, the biggest lender to the fossil-fuel industry suddenly decided green investments made more sense. Even the staid insurance industry began refusing to underwrite new oil and gas pipelines—and shorn of its easy access to capital, the industry was also shorn of much of its political influence. Every quarter meant fewer voters who mined coal and more who installed solar panels, and that made political change even easier.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of McKibben’s essay at the link.

The 2020 election might be America’s and the world’s last, best chance for salvation from Trump and his anti-science, climate denying GOP cabal that is bent on destroying our air, water, resources, and health.

PWS

09-13-19

JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”

New from JMHS | An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

View this email in your browser

A publication of the Center for Migration Studies

Donald Kerwin, Executive Editor
John Hoeffner and Michele Pistone, Associate Editors

An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

By Paul Wickham Schmidt (Georgetown Law)

This paper critiques US immigration and asylum policies from perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. It also offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens); “associate members” (lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees); “friends” (non-immigrants and holders of temporary status); and, persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations, as well as recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and Constitutional rights that extend to non-citizens. It makes the following asylum reform proposals, relying (mostly) on existing laws designed to address situations of larger-scale migration:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, in particular, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should send far more Asylum Officers to conduct credible fear interviews at the border.
Law firms, pro bono attorneys, and charitable legal agencies should attempt to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts.
USCIS Asylum Officers should be permitted to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to applicants likely to face torture if returned to their countries of origin.
Immigration Judges should put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” — thus keeping these cases from clogging the Immigration Courts — while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere on more durable solutions for those fleeing the Northern Triangle states of Central America.
Individuals found to have a “credible fear” should be released on minimal bonds and be allowed to move to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers.
Asylum Officers should be vested with the authority to grant asylum in the first instance, thus keeping more asylum cases out of Immigration Court.
If the Administration wants to prioritize the cases of recent arrivals, it should do so without creating more docket reshuffling, inefficiencies, and longer backlogs

Download the PDF of the article

Read more JMHS articles at http://cmsny.org/jmhs/

Want to learn more about access to asylum on the US-Mexico border? Join the Center for Migration Studies for our annual Academic and Policy Symposium on October 17.

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

My long-time friend Don Kerwin, Executive Director of CMS, has been a “Lt. General of the New Due Process Army” since long before there even was a “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Talk about someone who has spent his entire career increasing human understanding and making the world a better place! Don is a great role model and example for newer members of the NDPA, proving that one can make a difference, as well as a living, in our world by doing great things and good works! Not surprisingly, Don’s career achievements and contributions bear great resemblance to those of our mutual friend, the late Juan Osuna.

So, when Don asked me to consider turning some of my past speeches about our immigration system and how it should work into an article to honor Juan, I couldn’t say no. But, I never would have gotten it “across the finish line” without Don’s inspiration, encouragement, editing, and significant substantive suggestions for improvement, as well as that of the talented peer reviewers and editorial staff of JMHS. Like most achievements in life, it truly was a “team effort” for which I thank all involved.

Those of you who might have attended my Boynton Society Lecture last Saturday, August 10, at the beautiful and inspiring Bjorklunden Campus of Lawrence University on the shores of Lake Michigan at Bailey’s Harbor, WI, will see that portions of this article were “reconverted” and incorporated into that speech.

Also, those who might have taken the class “American Immigration, a Cultural, Legal, and Anthropological Approach” at the Bjorklunden Seminar Series the previous week, co-taught by my friend Professor Jenn Esperanza of The Beloit College Anthropology Department, and me had the then-unpublished manuscript in their course materials, and will no doubt recognize many of the themes that Jenn and I stressed during that week.

Perhaps the only “comment that really mattered” was passed on to me by Don shortly after this article was released. It was from Juan’s wife, the also amazing and inspiring Wendy Young, President of Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”):“Juan would be truly honored.”

Donald M. Kerwin
Executive Director
Center for Migration Studies

Juan P. Osuna (1963-2017)
Judge, Executive, Scholar, Teacher, Defender of Due Process

Wendy Young
President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)

PWS

08-19-19

[BUREAU] ‘CRATS CONTINUE TO FLEE SINKING DHS SHIP AS ABUSES, LIES, COVER-UPS MOUNT — John Sanders Latest To Exit — Trump Taps Mark Morgan, Eager Architect Of Administration’s Temporarily Aborted “Community Reign of Terror” (A/K/A/ “Operation Wetback ‘19”) Program As Next Acting CBP Chief — Expect More Mindless Cruelty, Lies, False Narratives, White Nationalist Racism, Violations Of Law & Human Rights!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/politics/customs-and-border-protection-john-sanders/index.html

Priscilla Alvarez and Geneva Sands report for CNN:

Washington (CNN)Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders is resigning, he said in a message sent to agency employees Tuesday, amid the dramatic increase in the number of undocumented migrants crossing the border, a fight over how to address it and controversy over how children are being treated.

“Although I will leave it to you to determine whether I was successful, I can unequivocally say that helping support the amazing men and women of CBP has been the most fulfilling and satisfying opportunity of my career,” Sanders writes. His resignation is effective July 5.

Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Mark Morgan is expected to take over as Customs and Border Protection in an acting capacity, according to a Department of Homeland Security official. Sanders’s resignation as acting head of CBP comes amid a crush of migrants at the border that has overwhelmed facilities. Earlier Tuesday, CBP held a call with reporters on squalid conditions at a Border Patrol facility in Clint, Texas.

Officials conceded that children should not be held in CBP custody, noting that the agency’s facilities were designed decades ago to largely accommodate single adults for a short period of time.

The Washington Post first reported Morgan’s move.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump called off planned raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying deportations would proceed unless Congress finds a solution on the US-Mexico border within two weeks. Before it was postponed, Mark Morgan had publicly confirmed an operation targeting migrant families and others with court-ordered removals was in the works.

Morgan, a vocal proponent of the President’s efforts, was another of Trump’s picks to lead ICE after abruptly pulling the nomination of Ron Vitiello.

Morgan briefly served as Border Patrol chief during the Obama administration before leaving the post in January 2017. He previously spent two decades at the FBI. He is expected to return to Customs and Border Protection, which encompasses Border Patrol.

Sanders assumed the post after Kevin McAleenan, the former commissioner, moved up to fill the role of acting homeland security secretary in the wake of Kirstjen Nielsen’s ouster this spring. In his role, Sanders has overseen the agency responsible for policing the US borders and facilitating legal trade and travel. It is also the frontline agency dealing with the surge of migrants at the southern border.

Robert Perez, the highest-ranking career official, is the current deputy commissioner. It is unclear if he will step into the acting commissioner position.

<img alt=”100 children moved back to controversial Clint, Texas, border facility” class=”media__image” src=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180706121423-02-immigration-facility-0628-large-169.jpg”>

100 children moved back to controversial Clint, Texas, border facility

Before becoming acting commissioner, Sanders, served as the Chief Operating Officer at CBP, where he worked with McAleenan to address the operational needs of the agency and work on strategic direction.

As of June 1 this fiscal year, Border Patrol has arrested more than 377,000 family units, over 60,000 unaccompanied children, and over 226,000 single adults.

Sanders did not provide a reason for his departure.

Read Sanders’s letter here:

As some of you are aware, yesterday I offered my resignation to Secretary McAleenan, effective Friday, July 5. In that letter, I quoted a wise man who said to me, “each man will judge their success by their own metrics.” Although I will leave it to you to determine whether I was successful, I can unequivocally say that helping support the amazing men and women of CBP has been the most fulfilling and satisfying opportunity of my career.

<img alt=”100 children moved back to controversial Clint, Texas, border facility” class=”media__image” src=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180706121423-02-immigration-facility-0628-large-169.jpg”>

100 children moved back to controversial Clint, Texas, border facility

I’ve spent a significant amount of time over the last several days reflecting on my time at CBP. When I began this journey, Commissioner McAleenan charged me with aligning the mission support organizations and accelerating his priorities. Easy enough, I thought. What I didn’t appreciate at the time was how the journey would transform me professionally and personally. This transformation was due in large part to the fact that people embraced and welcomed me in a way that was new to me — in a way that was truly special. To this day, I get choked up when speaking about it and I can’t adequately express my thanks. As a result, let me simply say I will never stop defending the people and the mission for which 427 people gave their lives in the line of duty in defending. Hold your heads high with the honor and distinction that you so richly deserve.

Throughout our journey together, your determination and can-do attitude made the real difference. It allowed CBP to accomplish what others thought wasn’t possible…what others weren’t able to do. And even though there is uncertainty during change, there is also opportunity. I therefore encourage everyone to reflect on all that you have accomplished as a team. My hope is you build upon your accomplishments and embrace new opportunities, remain flexible, and continue to make CBP extraordinary. This is your organization…own it! Don’t underestimate the power of momentum as you continue to tackle some of this country’s most difficult challenges.

I will forever be honored to have served beside you. As a citizen of this great country, I thank you for your public service.

Take care of each other,

John

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

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the latest TRAC Report confirms that under Trump, the DHS, particularly ICE, has been ignoring real enforcement priorities to concentrate on often counterproductive, yet cruel, wasteful, and polarizing, improperly politicized enforcement aimed at non-criminals and those contributing to our country. In other words, terrorizing primarily Hispanic communities just because they can. And these racist attacks appeal to Trump’s base. Just part of the “ICE Fraud” that Morgan undoubtedly intends to bring over to CBP. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/564/.

Not surprisingly, some dedicated and professional ICE Agents are tiring of Trump and his sycophants’ “malicious incompetence” that is demoralizing the agency and (as I had predicted long ago) turning it into probably the most hated, least trusted, least useful, and least effective law enforcement organization in America. Michelle Mark at Business Insider covers the “bad things that happen” when you have a “no values” White Nationalist President and exceptionally poor leaders like Tom Homan and Mark Morgan who lacked both the will and the backbone to stand up to Trump’s White Nationalist nonsense. https://apple.news/AxFctS7mET3qBX419lPootw

It’s an out of control agency badly in need of professional leadership, practical priorities, and some restraint and professional discipline in both rhetoric and actions. In other words, it needs a real law enforcement mission with honest, unbiased, professional leadership. Not going to happen under Trump!

So, the next competent President will have her or his work cut out to reform and reorganize ICE into an agency that serves the national interests of the majority of Americans. Whether that can be done in ICE’s current configuration, given its overtly racist overtones and widespread lack of community trust under Trump, remains to be seen. It could be beyond repair.

PWS

06-26-19

POLITICS: Dems Should Not Go “Trump Lite” — Trump’s Highly Unsuccessful White Nationalist Restrictionist Approach Is Unpopular Outside His Base — There’s “no strong argument for Democrats to abandon their moral principles and practical stances to try to win more votes.”

https://apple.news/AAOOjWWx8TW-dG6_ahR4T6Q

Zack Beauchamp writes in Vox:

Democrats don’t need to tack right on immigration to win

Pundits like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan want Democrats to move right on immigration. They’re wrong.

In the years since Donald Trump’s victory, a cottage intellectual industry has sprung up arguing that Democrats and European center-left parties need to move right on immigration if they want to win.

Its proponents include anti-Trump conservative writers like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan (themselves both immigrants to the United States), center-right academics like Oxford’s Paul Collier and University of London’s Eric Kaufmann, and even a few leftists like essayist Angela Nagle. The basic argument is pretty consistent: There’s a rising populist revolt against mass immigration in the West, and liberals need to adjust to this reality rather than try to fight it.

This industry has gone into overdrive in recent weeks, driven largely by the results of Denmark’s early June election. Denmark’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had tacked hard right on immigration in recent years, defeated the conservative incumbent and won the most seats in parliament, while the far-right populist Danish People’s Party (DPP) lost more than half of its support. This, the immigration skeptics argue, is proof that they are right: Democrats and other center-left parties can co-opt Trump and the European far right simply by leaning into their anti-migrant bona fides.

“Imagine if [Elizabeth] Warren were to model her campaign on the newly elected social democrats in Denmark,” Sullivan writes. “A Democratic adoption of tighter immigration policies and less stridently leftist cultural stances could dominate” among many voters.

The reality of Denmark’s election is much more complicated than Sullivan’s morality play. The Danish campaign debate focused heavily on climate change and welfare state issues, with immigration playing less of a role than some external observers believe. Only a small percentage of DPP voters seemed to switch to the SDP. Perhaps most importantly, the SDP won only one more seat than it had in the 2015 election — an election it lost. Instead, the SDP benefited from a surge in support for smaller, relatively pro-immigration left-wing parties that could support it in a coalition.

The problems with the anti-immigration analysts’ view of Denmark mirror problems with their broader thesis. Political scientists have studied whether center-left parties benefit from tacking right on immigration, and the best evidence strongly suggests that they don’t.

What’s happening is an example of what my colleague Matt Yglesias calls “the pundit’s fallacy”: a writer’s conviction that their preferred policy ideas must be popular, and that a party who adopts their views will win because of it. But there’s substantial reason to think moving further right on immigration would hurt the center left, and no strong argument for Democrats to abandon their moral principles and practical stances to try to win more votes.

What do we know about the center left and immigration?

After the Danish election, Harvard PhD student Sophie Hill put together a Twitter thread summarizing the leading research on European social democratic parties and immigration. Her read of the literature is clear: “Should centre left parties ‘get tough’ on immigration? No!”

Hill, following an influential 2010 paper, argues that there’s a trade-off inherent to center-left parties’ positioning on the issue. If they maintain their traditional liberal positions, they lose ground with culturally conservative and less educated voters in the working class. If they move right, they risk alienating their cosmopolitan base on the left. (A third option is ignoring and downplaying immigration, but that can be tricky given how important the issue is in public debate.)

Two major questions follow: Does moving to the right on immigration win over a significant number of working-class voters? And, if so, is it enough to offset the losses among the left-wing base?

Research by German scholar Kai Arzheimer, whose work I’ve looked at before, suggests the answer to the first question is no. Arzheimer studied 16 European center-left parties with varying approaches to immigration, developing a model that attempts to estimates the effect of immigration positions on working-class vote share. He found that parties that tacked to the right on immigration did no better with the working class than those that maintained their traditional pro-migrant stances.

When it comes to the working class, he concludes, “it does not make a difference whether the Social Democrats stick to their traditional positions on immigration or whether they try to toughen up their policies.”

This makes intuitive sense. If you’re someone who really cares about immigration restrictionism, and you have a choice of a far-right party that’s long been obsessed with that issue or a liberal Johnny-come-lately, why would you vote for the latter?

Center-left parties “shouldn’t be purely focused on winning back the voters who went to the radical right, because when push comes to shove, a significant part of that electorate is deeply nativist,” Cas Mudde, a scholar of the European far right at the University of Georgia, told me in a 2017 interview. “They want a party that is nativist; the only way to win them back is pretty much by becoming radical right or radical right-light.”

If that’s true, then it should follow that tacking right hurts these parties overall: With no gains in the working class, it’s likely that the losses in support from culturally liberal voters wouldn’t be offset. That’s exactly what research by Tarik Abou-Chadi, a political scientist at the University of Zurich, suggests.

The following chart from Abou-Chadi’s work maps European social democratic parties’ immigration positions on a scale of 3 to 7; the higher the number, the more anti-immigrant they are. The trend lines at the top clearly suggest that the more anti-immigrant a party is, the less likely people in their country are to vote for them.

Another study from two scholars at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg took a look at how this played out on a granular level.

Using data from a survey sent out to roughly 13,000 local Swedish politicians, they tried to identify what happened when social democratic parties moved to the right on immigration. It turns out that in regions where that happened, support for far-right parties actually went up. Rather than stealing votes from the far right, they argue, the center left was legitimizing their positions, making it morally acceptable for voters to act on their anti-immigrant sentiments.

All this data points to a clear conclusion: Even if the 2019 Danish elections do turn out to be a story of the left winning based on a rightward shift on immigration, which doesn’t seem likely, there’s little reason to believe that this strategy would work elsewhere — and good reason to think it might backfire.

Europe’s lessons for the Democrats

Obviously, you can’t draw one-to-one lessons from European social democratic parties to the American Democratic Party. But much of the same logic applies: Democrats depend on high turnout from their educated, culturally liberal white voters, and likely won’t benefit by being seen as “Republican-lite” on a key cultural issue.

What’s more, Democrats get backing from several voting constituencies composed of both naturalized and native-born citizens who have a real stake in the issue. Latinx people are the obvious example, but so are Asian Americans and Jewish voters: people who identify with immigrants due to their own family stories of coming to the United States, and would see a move toward restrictionism as a threat and a betrayal.

And, once again, there’s statistical support for this line of thinking.

One paper compared data on Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008, which had a comparatively generic outreach program to Latinos, to its 2012 campaign, which focused heavily on turning out Latino voters by emphasizing pro-immigration positions like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The data concluded that “Obama’s Latino targeted outreach was (1) remarkably effective at winning over Latino voters; and (2) it had coattail effects for Democratic Senate candidates.”

There’s reason to believe this could be even more true in the Trump era. While Trump has mobilized a vocal minority of anti-immigrant voters in the Republican Party, survey after survey has shown that this has led to a backlash among the rest of the population, with numbers of Americans expressing support for immigration reaching historic highs in tracking polls.

There’s another reason to believe moving toward immigration restrictionism would be counterproductive for Democrats: New citizens themselves are an important Democratic constituency.

A study by three economists tried to study how the changes in America’s population wrought by mass immigration — more Latino voters, for example — were changing American politics. They found that “immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share,” largely because “naturalized migrants [are] less likely to vote for the Republican party than native voters.” Why spit in this group’s face by adopting restrictionist positions, which seem to be unpopular with the majority of Americans, on the off chance that they might win over some Trump voters?

Look, it’s possible that all of this data is incorrect. Social science is tricky, and it’s possible the experts are measuring things wrong (or measuring the wrong things). Maybe the US is nothing like Europe, and Latinos will turn out for Democrats regardless of what they say about immigration. Maybe being Trump-lite on immigration really would help Democrats.

But there’s no reason to take that gamble given that the best evidence goes the other way — unless you already believe that mass immigration is bad for the United States.

If you’re a Democratic politician who believes believe that immigrants depress native-born wages, or undermine the social cohesion necessary to maintain liberal democracy, then you’re probably willing to gamble that all the research is wrong. But that’s not what most Democrats believe, for very good substantive reasons. There’s no real political case for them go back on those convictions now.

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

Due process, a functional independent U.S. Immigration Court, expanded legal immigration and refugee programs that put many more would-be migrants through pre-screening and into legal channels while addressing American’s need for economic growth, international cooperation, smart development, and reprogramming money misallocated to ultimately futile and inhumane “civil enforcement” to real law enforcement activities is a winning program.

By contrast, Trump’s program of hate, fear, and oppression divides America, wastes money right and left, and is ineffective. Dems should not be afraid to take on Trump’s irrational xenophobia to appeal to the “better angels” of American voters with smarter, better, practical, and humane ideas.

PWS

06-18-19

REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

OUR DISTINGUISHED PANEL:

Eileen Blessinger, Blessinger Legal

Lisa Johnson-Firth, Immigrants First

Andrea Rodriguez, Rodriguez Law

FBA Austin -Central America — Intro

JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Federal Bar Association Immigration Conference

Austin, Texas

May 17, 2019

Hi, I’m Paul Schmidt, moderator of this panel. So, I have something useful to do while my wonderful colleagues do all the “heavy lifting,” please submit all questions to me in writing. And remember, free beer for everyone at the Bullock Texas State Museum after this panel!

Welcome to the front lines of the battle for our legal system, and ultimately for the future of our constitutional republic. Because, make no mistake, once this Administration, its nativist supporters, and enablers succeed in eradicating the rights and humanity of Central American asylum seekers, all their other “enemies” — Hispanics, gays, African Americans, the poor, women, liberals, lawyers, journalists, civil servants, Democrats — will be in line for “Dred Scottification” — becoming “non-persons” under our Constitution. If you don’t know what the “Insurrection Act” is or “Operation Wetback” was, you should “tune in” to today’s edition of my blog immigrationcourtside.com and take a look into the future of America under our current leaders’ dark and disgraceful vision.

Before I introduce the “Dream Team” sitting to my right, a bit of asylum history.

In 1987, the Supreme Court established in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca that a well founded fear of persecution for asylum was to be interpreted generously in favor of asylum applicants. So generously, in fact, that someone with only a 10% chance of persecution qualifies.

Shortly thereafter, the BIA followed suit with Matter of Mogharrabi, holding that asylum should be granted even in cases where persecution was significantly less than probable. To illustrate, the BIA granted asylum to an Iranian who suffered threats at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, DC. Imagine what would happen to a similar case under today’s regime!

In the 1990s, the “Legacy INS” enacted regulations establishing that those who had suffered “past persecution” would be presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution, unless the Government could show materially changed circumstances or a reasonably available internal relocation alternative that would eliminate that well-founded fear. In my experience as a judge, that was a burden that the Government seldom could meet.

But the regulations went further and said that even where the presumption of a well founded fear had been rebutted, asylum could still be granted because of “egregious past persecution” or “other serious harm.”

In 1996, the BIA decided the landmark case of Matter of Kasinga, recognizing that abuses directed at women by a male dominated society, such as “female genital mutilation’ (“FGM”), could be a basis for granting asylum based on a “particular social group.” Some of us, including my good friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg, staked our careers on extending that much-need protection to women who had suffered domestic violence. Although it took an unnecessarily long time, that protection eventually was realized in the 2014 precedent Matter of A-R-C-G-, long after our “forced departure” from the BIA.

And, as might be expected, over the years the asylum grant rate in Immigration Court rose steadily, from a measly 11% in the early 1980s, when EOIR was created, to 56% in 2012, in an apparent long overdue fulfillment of the generous legal promise of Cardoza-Fonseca. Added to those receiving withholding of removal and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), approximately two-thirds of asylum applicants were receiving well-deserved, often life-saving legal protection in Immigration Court.

Indeed, by that time, asylum grant rates in some of the more due-process oriented courts with asylum expertise like New York and Arlington exceeded 70%, and could have been models for the future. In other words, after a quarter of a century of struggles, the generous promise of Cardoza-Fonseca was finally on the way to being fulfilled. Similarly, the vision of the Immigration Courts as “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” was at least coming into focus, even if not a reality in some Immigration Courts that continued to treat asylum applicants with hostility.

And, that doesn’t count those offered prosecutorial discretion or “PD” by the DHS counsel. Sometimes, this was a humanitarian act to save those who were in danger if returned but didn’t squarely fit the somewhat convoluted “refugee” definition as interpreted by the BIA. Other times, it appeared to be a strategic move by DHS to head off possible precedents granting asylum in “close cases” or in “emerging circumstances.”

In 2014, there was a so-called “surge” in asylum applicants, mostly scared women, children, and families from the Northern Triangle of Central America seeking protection from worsening conditions involving gangs, cartels, and corrupt governments.There was a well-established record of femicide and other widespread and largely unmitigated gender-based violence directed against women and gays, sometimes by the Northern Triangle governments and their agents, other times by gangs and cartels operating with the knowledge and acquiescence of the governments concerned.

Also, given the breakdown of governmental authority and massive corruption, gangs and cartels assumed quasi-governmental status, controlling territories, negotiating “treaties,” exacting involuntary “taxes,” and severely punishing those who publicly opposed their political policies by refusing to join, declining to pay, or attempting to report them to authorities. Indeed, MS-13 eventually became the largest employer in El Salvador. Sometimes, whole family groups, occupational groups, or villages were targeted for their public acts of resistance.

Not surprisingly in this context, the vast majority of those who arrived during the so-called “surge” passed “credible fear” screening by the DHS and were referred to the Immigration Courts, or in the case of “unaccompanied minors,” to the Asylum Offices, to pursue their asylum claims.

The practical legal solution to this humanitarian flow was obvious — help folks find lawyers to assist in documenting and presenting their cases, screen out the non-meritorious claims and those who had prior gang or criminal associations, and grant the rest asylum. Even those not qualifying for asylum because of the arcane “nexus” requirements appeared to fit squarely within the CAT protection based on likelihood of torture with government acquiescence upon return to the Northern Triangle. Some decent BIA precedents, a robust refugee program in the Northern Triangle, along with continued efforts to improve the conditions there would have “sealed the deal.” In other words, the Obama Administration had all of the legal tools necessary to deal effectively and humanely with the misnamed “surge” as what it really was — a humanitarian situation and an opportunity for our country to show human rights leadership!

But, then things took a strange and ominous turn. After years of setting records for deportations and removals, and being disingenuously called “soft on enforcement” by the GOP, the Obama Administration began believing the GOP myths that they were wimps. They panicked! Their collective “manhood” depended on showing that they could quickly return refugees to the Northern Triangle to “deter” others from coming. Thus began the “weaponization” of our Immigration Court system that has continued unabated until today.

They began imprisoning families and children in horrible conditions and establishing so-called “courts” in those often for profit prisons in obscure locations where attorneys generally were not readily available. They absurdly claimed that everyone should be held without bond because as a group they were a “national security risk.” They argued in favor of indefinite detention without bond and making children and toddlers “represent themselves” in Immigration Court.

The Attorney General also sent strong messages to EOIR that hurrying folks through the system by “prioritizing” them, denying their claims, “stuffing” their appeals, and returning them to the Northern Triangle with a mere veneer of due process was an essential part of the Administration’s “get tough” enforcement program. EOIR was there to “send a message” to those who might be considering fleeing for their lives — don’t come, you won’t get in, no matter how strong your claim might be.

They took judges off of their established dockets and sent them to the Southern Border to expeditiously remove folks before they could get legal help. They insisted on jamming unprepared cases of recently arrived juveniles and “adults with children” in front of previously docketed cases, thereby generating total chaos and huge backlogs through what is known as “aimless docket reshuffling” (“ADR”).

Hurry up scheduling and ADR also resulted in more “in absentia” orders because of carelessly prepared and often inadequate or wrongly addressed “notices” sent out by overwhelmed DHS and EOIR court staff. Sometimes DHS could remove those with in absentia orders before they got a chance to reopen their cases. Other times, folks didn’t even realize a removal order had been entered until they were on their way back.

They empowered judges with unusually high asylum denial rates. By a ratio of nine to one they hired new judges from prosecutorial backgrounds, rather than from the large body of qualified candidates with experience in representing asylum applicants who might actually have been capable of working within the system to fairly and efficiently recognize meritorious cases, promote fair access to pro bono counsel, and insure that doubtful cases or those needing more attention did not get “lost” in the artificial backlogs being created in an absurdly mismanaged system. In other words, due process took a back seat to “expedience” and fulfilling inappropriate Administration enforcement goals.

Asylum grant rates began to drop, even as conditions on the ground for refugees worldwide continued to deteriorate. Predictably, however, detention, denial, inhumane treatment, harsh rhetoric, and unfair removals failed to stop refugees from fleeing the Northern Triangle.

But, just when many of us thought things couldn’t get worse, they did. The Trump Administration arrived on the scene. They put lifelong White Nationalist xenophobe nativists Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller in charge of eradicating the asylum process. Sessions decided that even artificially suppressed asylum grant rates weren’t providing enough deterrence; asylum seekers were still winning too many cases. So he did away with A-R-C-G- and made it harder for Immigration Judges to control their dockets.

He tried to blame asylum seekers and their largely pro bono attorneys, whom he called “dirty lawyers,” for having created a population of 11 million undocumented individuals in the U.S. He promoted bogus claims and false narratives about immigrants and crime. Perhaps most disgustingly, he was the “mastermind” behind the policy of “child separation” which inflicted lifetime damage upon the most vulnerable and has resulted in some children still not being reunited with their families.

He urged “judges” to summarily deny asylum claims of women based on domestic violence or because of fear of persecution by gangs. He blamed the judges for the backlogs he was dramatically increasing with more ADR and told them to meet new quotas for churning out final orders or be fired. He made it clear that denials of asylum, not grants, were to be the “new norm” for final orders.

His sycophantic successor, Bill Barr, an immigration hard-liner, immediately picked up the thread by eliminating bond for most individuals who had passed credible fear. Under Barr, the EOIR has boldly and publicly abandoned any semblance of due process, fairness, or unbiased decision making in favor of becoming an Administration anti-asylum propaganda factory. Just last week they put out a “bogus fact sheet” of lies about the asylum process and the dedicated lawyers trying to help asylum seekers. The gist was that the public should believe that almost all asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle are mala fide and that getting them attorneys and explaining their rights are a waste of time and money.

In the meantime, the Administration has refused to promptly process asylum applicants at ports of entry; made those who have passed credible fear “wait in Mexico” in dangerous and sometimes life-threatening conditions; unsuccessfully tried to suspend the law allowing those who enter the U.S. between ports of entry to apply for asylum; expanded the “New American Gulag” with tent cities and more inhumane prisons — dehumanizingly referred to as “beds” as if they existed without reference to those humans confined to them; illegally reprogrammed money that could have gone for additional humanitarian assistance to a stupid and unnecessary “wall;” and threatened to “dump” asylum seekers to “punish” so-called “sanctuary cities.” Perhaps most outrageously, in violation of clear statutory mandates, they have replaced trained Asylum Officers in the “credible fear” process with totally unqualified Border Patrol Agents whose job is to make the system “adversarial” and to insure that fewer individuals pass “credible fear.”

The Administration says the fact that the “credible fear” pass rate is much higher than the asylum grant rate is evidence that the system is being “gamed.” That’s nativist BS! The, reality is just the opposite: that so many of those who pass credible fear are eventually rejected by Immigration Judges shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the Immigration Court system. Under pressure to produce and with too many biased, untrained, and otherwise unqualified “judges,” many claims that should be granted are being wrongfully denied.

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.

Here to tell you how to effectively litigate for the New Due Process Army and to save even more lives of deserving refugees from all areas of the world, particularly from the Northern Triangle, are three of the “best ever.” I know that, because each of them appeared before me during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. They certainly brightened up my day whenever they appeared, and I know they will enlighten you with their legal knowledge, energy, wit, and humanity.

Andrea Rodriguez is the principal of Rodriguez Law in Arlington Virginia. Prior to opening her own practice, Andrea was the Director of Legal Services at the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN). She is a graduate of the City University of New York Law and George Mason University.

Eileen Blessinger is the principal of Blessinger Legal in Falls Church, Virginia. Eileen is a graduate of the Washington College of Law at American University. In addition to heading a multi-attorney practice firm, she is a frequent commentator on legal issues on television and in the print media.

Lisa Johnson-Firth is the principal of Immigrants First, specializing in removal defense, waivers, family-based adjustment, asylum and Convention Against Torture claims, naturalization, U and T visas, and Violence Against Women Act petitions. She holds a J.D. from Northeastern University, an LLB from the University of Sheffield in the U.K., and a B.A. degree from Allegheny College.

Andrea, starting with you, what’s the real situation in the Northern Triangle and the sordid history of the chronic failure of state protection?

PWS

05-20-19

TRUTH MATTERS: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: AILA Blasts EOIR’s False & Unethical Anti-Asylum Screed! — “Together, the document’s deceptive information and polarizing rhetoric further undermines the court system’s ability to be a neutral arbiter of justice and comes at a time when there is a severe lack of public confidence in its capacity to deliver fair and timely decisions. EOIR’s skewed portrayal only demonstrates the urgent need for Congress to create an independent court, separate from DOJ.”

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-policy-briefs/aila-policy-brief-facts-about-the-state-of-our

Policy Brief: Facts About the State of Our Nation’s Immigration Courts May 14, 2019
Contact: Laura Lynch (llynch@aila.org) or Kate Voigt (kvoigt@aila.org)
On May 8, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) distributed a document to journalists that contained misleading material related to our nation’s immigration courts.1 The document, which purports to list “myths” and “facts”, is also filled with political rhetoric.2 America’s courts are meant to be impartial, dedicated to fairly and efficiently adjudicating the cases brought before them. Together, the document’s deceptive information and polarizing rhetoric further undermines the court system’s ability to be a neutral arbiter of justice and comes at a time when there is a severe lack of public confidence in its capacity to deliver fair and timely decisions.3 EOIR’s skewed portrayal only demonstrates the urgent need for Congress to create an independent court, separate from DOJ.
• The immigration court structure is inherently flawed
Unlike many judicial bodies, the immigration courts lack independence from the executive branch because they are administered by EOIR, which is housed under DOJ – the same agency that prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level.4 This inherent conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that immigration judges (IJs) are considered merely government attorneys, a classification that fails to recognize the significance of their judicial duties and puts them under the control of the U.S. Attorney General (AG), the chief prosecutor in immigration cases.
Because of this structural flaw, the immigration court system has long been vulnerable to political pressure from the executive branch. For example, the courts have been repeatedly subject to “aimless docket reshuffling” based on politically motivated priorities.5 President Obama’s administration prioritized the adjudication of “family unit” cases which EOIR recently determined “coincided with some of the lowest levels of case completion productivity in EOIR’s history.”6 President Trump ordered IJs deployed to detention facilities on the border where they reported that they had very few cases to adjudicate. Over 20,000 cases were rescheduled as a result of the Administration’s deployment.7
• EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas on judges, pressuring them to rush through cases at the expense of well-reasoned decisions
Despite opposition from immigration judges,8 EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas, tying judges’ individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete.9 Under the new requirements, IJs must complete 700 removal cases in the next year or risk losing their jobs.10 A strict time frame for completion of cases can interfere with a judge’s ability to ensure that a person’s right to examine and present evidence is respected, to provide adequate time to obtain an attorney, secure various expert witnesses, and obtain evidence from overseas.11 This kind of rushed, assembly-line justice is unacceptable to impose on IJs who are making important, often life-or-death, decisions.
During a March 7, 2019 congressional hearing, the director of EOIR asserted that several other agencies also utilize “case completion goals.”12 However, other agencies’ goals are used to determine resource allocation, while EOIR’s case completion quotas are tied directly to an IJ’s performance evaluations.13
AILA Doc. No. 19051438. (Posted 5/14/19)

AILA, the American Immigration Council, and other legal organizations and scholars oppose the quotas that have been described by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a “death knell for judicial independence.”14 In fact, recommendations made by an independent third party in a report commissioned by EOIR itself propose a judicial performance review model that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence.”15
• Scholars have concluded that immigrants represented by attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process
While Federal law guarantees immigrants facing deportation the right to be represented by an attorney, it does not provide immigrants with an attorney at the government’s expense if they cannot afford representation.16 Only 37 percent of all noncitizens and 14 percent of detained noncitizens are represented.17 However, the American Immigration Council has found that “immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process” – people with attorneys are more likely to be released from detention during their case, they are more likely to apply for some type of relief, and they are more likely to obtain relief from deportation.18 The consequences for people who face removal without representation are severe: detained immigrants in removal proceedings who lack representation are about ten times less likely to obtain relief.19 Despite statistics that show the assistance of counsel has a significant positive impact on outcomes, thousands of families and unaccompanied children fleeing persecution and violence at home have appeared in immigration court over the years without a lawyer at their side.
Attorneys also help facilitate more efficient court proceedings. NAIJ’s President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, stated, “when noncitizens are represented by competent counsel, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.”20 Recent studies have also confirmed that immigrants with representation are far more likely to comply with court appearance requirements.21 A recent report by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) found that, as of December 2017, 97 percent of mothers in immigration court represented by counsel were in compliance with their immigration court obligations over a three year period.22
• The Legal Orientation Program improves judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness
EOIR has operated the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) in immigration detention centers since 2003.23 While not a substitute for legal counsel, LOP is often the only source of basic legal information that assists detained immigrants in navigating a complex court process. In fact, LOP has been proven to increase court efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. A 2012 study commissioned by DOJ demonstrated that the program decreased the average length of time a person is detained by an average of six days, saving approximately $17.8 million each year.24 EOIR’s own website publicly endorsed the LOP program in 2017, stating that “[e]xperience has shown that the LOP has had positive effects on the immigration court process,”25 and an independent report commissioned by EOIR recommended that DOJ “consider expanding know your rights and legal representation programs, such as … LOP.”26 Despite this overwhelming support, DOJ attempted to end the program in April 2018 and removed content on its website that endorsed the program.27 After significant criticism, it rescinded its proposed termination, but continues to undermine the program by releasing flawed evaluations of its efficacy. 28
• Court statistics demonstrate that asylum grant rates vary widely depending on the judge
It is well-documented that the disparity in asylum grant rates is an endemic problem.29 The grant rates for cases vary widely depending on the judge—asylum grant rates are less than 5 percent in some jurisdictions yet higher than 60 percent in others—and give rise to criticism that outcomes may turn on which judge is deciding the case rather than established principles and rules of law.30 EOIR has not taken adequate
2
AILA Doc. No. 19051438. (Posted 5/14/19)

corrective action to address this problem and ensure that court proceedings are conducted in a fair and consistent manner. The agency’s inadequate response illustrates the weakness of a court system not overseen by an independent judicial agency whose primary function is to ensure the rule of law, impartiality, and due process in the adjudication of cases.
• Use of video teleconferencing (VTC) undermines the quality of communications during immigration hearings and threatens due process
For years, legal organizations have opposed the use of VTC to conduct in immigration merits hearings, except in matters in which the noncitizen has given consent.31 An empirical study published in the Northwestern University Law Review revealed that detained respondents appearing via VTC were more likely to be deported than those with in-person hearings.32 In April of 2017, a separate EOIR-commissioned report explained that VTC technology does not provide for the ability to transmit nonverbal cues, which can impact an immigration judges’ assessment of an individual’s demeanor and credibility.33 The report concluded that proceedings by VTC should be limited to procedural matters because appearances by VTC may interfere with due process.”34
Additionally, technological glitches such as weak connections and bad audio can make it difficult to communicate effectively via VTC. An EOIR-commissioned study revealed that 29 percent of EOIR staff reported that VTC caused meaningful delay, a finding that is supported by accounts from courts including Omaha, which reported that VTC technology works “sometimes,” Salt Lake City, where observers stated that “technical delays are common,” and New York City, where immigration attorneys describe a VTC connection that “often stops working.”35 While EOIR claims that few cases are continued due to VTC malfunction, in reality, judges are only allowed to record one reason for a case being continued even if VTC issues contribute to a delay, which means that EOIR’s data is far from precise. 36 Despite these concerns, EOIR has expanded its use of VTC for substantive hearings, going as far as to create two immigration adjudication centers where IJs adjudicate cases from around the country from a remote setting.37
• Congress must establish an Article I immigration court system to ensure functioning courts
Congress should conduct rigorous oversight into policies that have eroded the court’s ability to ensure that decisions are rendered in a timely manner and consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. However, given its political dysfunction, years of underfunding, and inherently flawed structure, our immigration court system must be restructured into an Article I court system in order to restore the most important guarantee of our legal system: the right to a full and fair hearing by an impartial judge.38 For more information, go to www.aila.org/immigrationcourts.
1 EOIR, Myths vs. Facts About Immigration Proceedings, May 8, 2019.
2 The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) stated that “DOJ’s key assertions under both the “myths” and the “facts” either mischaracterize or misrepresent the facts.” See NAIJ Statement, National Assn. of Immigration Judges Say DOJ’s “Myths v. Facts” Filled with Errors and Misinformation, May 13, 2019. Furthermore, twenty-seven retired immigration judges (IJ) and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) deemed the document to be “political pandering” and proclaimed that “American Courts do not issue propaganda implying that those whose cases it rules on for the most part have invalid claims.” Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, EOIR “Myth vs. Fact” Memo, May 13, 2019.
3 Catherine Shoichet, CNN Politics, The American Bar Association says US immigration courts are ‘on the brink of collapse’, Mar. 20, 2019.
4 DOJ, Organization Chart, Feb. 5, 2018.
5 Retired Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Speech to the ABA Commission, Caricature of Justice: Stop the Attack on Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, and Human Decency in Our Captive Dysfunction U.S. Immigration Courts!, May 4, 2018; NAIJ, Letter to House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, Mar. 12, 2019.
3
AILA Doc. No. 19051438. (Posted 5/14/19)

6 Eric Katz, Government Executive, ‘Conveyer Belt’ Justice: An Inside Look at Immigration Courts, Jan. 22, 2019; EOIR, Tracking and Expedition of “Family Unit” Cases, Nov. 11, 2018
7 National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), Internal DOJ Documents Reveal Immigration Courts’ Scramble to Accommodate Trump Administration’s “Surge Courts, Sept. 27, 2017.
8 NAIJ, Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, May 2, 2018.
9 EOIR, Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, Mar. 30, 2018; See also Imposing Quotas on Immigration Judges will Exacerbate the Case Backlog at Immigration Courts, NAIJ, Jan. 31, 2018; Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018; and EOIR’s Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Oct. 23, 2017.
10 EOIR, Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, Mar. 30, 2018.
11 INA §240(b)(4)(B) requires that a respondent be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence. See AILA Policy Brief: Imposing Numeric Quotas on Judges Threatens the Independence and Integrity of Courts, Oct. 12, 2017.
12 House Committee on Appropriations, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (116th Congress), Executive Office for Immigration Review, Mar. 7, 2019.
13 In fact, Congress “specifically exempted ALJs from individual performance evaluations as a mechanism to ensure their independence from such measures and protect the integrity of their decisions.”
See NAIJ, Letter to House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, Mar. 12, 2019.
14 AILA and the American Immigration Council Statement, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018. See also NAIJ, Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 2017.
15 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017.
16 8 U.S.C. §1362 (West 2018).
17 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, American Immigration Council, Sept. 28, 2016.
18 Id.
19 AILA and the American Immigration Council, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018.
20 Sen. Mazie Hirono, Written Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Apr. 18, 2018.
21 Human Rights First, Immigration Court Appearance Rates, Feb. 9, 2018.
22 Retired Immigration Judge Paul W. Schmidt, Immigration Courts: Reclaiming the Vision, May 2017.
23 The American Immigration Council, Legal Orientation Program Overview, Sept. 2018.
24 DOJ, Cost Savings Analysis – The EOIR Legal Orientation Program, Apr. 4, 2012.
25 The Wayback Machine, EOIR Legal Orientation Program, as of Dec. 24, 2017.
26 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017.
27 Maria Sacchetti, The Washington Post, Justice Dept. to halt legal advice-program for immigrants in detention, Apr. 10, 2018; The Wayback Machine, EOIR Legal Orientation Program, as of May 5, 2018.
28 U.S. Department of Justice, Opening Statement of Attorney General Jeff Sessions Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Apr. 25, 2018. See also Vera Institute of Justice, Statement on DOJ Analysis of Legal Orientation Program, Sept. 5, 2018.
29 See Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, American Immigration Council, Sept. 28, 2016; See also GAO Report, Asylum Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration Courts and Judges, Nov. 16, 2016, “For fiscal years 1995 through 2014, EOIR data indicate that affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates varied over time and across immigration courts, applicants’ country of nationality, and individual immigration judges within courts.”
30 AILA Statement, Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System,” Apr. 18, 2018.
31 AILA Comments, ACUS Immigration Removal Adjudications Report, May 3, 2012; ABA Comments to ACUS, Responds to Taking Steps to Enhance Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Removal Adjudication, Feb. 17, 2012. 32 Ingrid Eagly, Northwestern Law Review, Remote Adjudication in Immigration, 2015.
4
AILA Doc. No. 19051438. (Posted 5/14/19)

33 Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts. In June of 2017, the GAO issued a report raising concerns that, “EOIR has not adopted the best practice of ensuring that its VTC program is outcome-neutral because it has not evaluated what, if any, effects VTC has on case outcomes.”
34 Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts.
35 Booz Allen Report on Immigration Courts; Tom Hals, Reuters, Groups sue U.S. to stop deportation hearings by videoconference in New York, Feb. 13, 2019; Kelan Lyons, Salt Lake City Weekly, Technical Difficulties, Oct. 10, 2018; Beth Fertig, WNYC, Do Immigrants Get a Fair Day in Court When It’s by Video? Sept. 11, 2018.
36 EOIR, Myths vs Facts About Immigration Proceedings, May 8, 2019; NAIJ Statement, National Assn. of Immigration Judges Say DOJ’s “Myths v. Facts” Filled with Errors and Misinformation, May 13, 2019.
37 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017. See also Katie Shepherd, American Immigration Council, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.
38 AILA Statement, The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent as DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 1, 2018. See also the NAIJ letter that joins AILA, the ABA, the Federal Bar Association, the American Adjudicature Society, and numerous other organizations endorsing the concept of an Article I immigration court. NAIJ Letter, Endorses Proposal for Article I Court, Mar. 15, 2018.
5
AILA Doc. No. 19051438. (Posted 5/14/19)

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

Seems like there is more than enough here for Congress to request that the DOJ Inspector General institute an investigation into ethical abuses and gross mismanagement by McHenry and other EOIR officials who are not only failing to fairly, impartially, and efficiently administer the Immigration Court system, but are also using Government time and resources to spread demonstrable lies and a nativist political propaganda. They also are using these knowingly false narratives to “shift blame” for their mismanagement to the victims: asylum applicants, their attorneys, and NGOs.

BTW, what exactly do the Chief Immigration Judge and the Chairman of the BIA do these days? These supposedly high level (and well-compensated) EOIR Senior Executives responsible for insuring judicial independence and fundamental fairness apparently have disappeared from public view. Have they been reduced to “hall walker” status in the finest tradition of the DOJ (under all Administrations) of “exiling” senior career officials who “don’t fit with the Administration’s political program? ” Perhaps the IG should also check into this.

In any event, the amount of corruption and “malicious incompetence” in EOIR management should make an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court a legislative imperative!

PWS

05-16-19

TAL @ SF CHRON: The New American Gulag Is Overflowing With Children

Immigrant children in US custody soaring back toward record levels

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigrant-children-in-US-custody-soaring-back-13834123.php

WASHINGTON — The number of undocumented immigrant children in U.S. custody is reaching breaking-point levels again, months after the Trump administration had reduced the total in shelters in response to anger over policies that kept children there.

The recent increase is largely due to a surge in the number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border rather than an administration policy. Overall crossings this year have skyrocketed to decade-high levels.

As of Thursday, the number of undocumented immigrant children in U.S. custody had increased to more than 13,000, according to figures obtained by The Chronicle. The number is a near-record high, and puts the shelter network that the Department of Health and Human Services runs to keep such children in custody near maximum capacity.

Trump administration officials have asked Congress for nearly $3 billion more to increase shelter capacity. Without it, they say, Health and Human Services could run out of money for the system by June.

While the shelter network has come under increased attention in the aftermath of President Trump’s separation of families at the border last summer in order to prosecute the parents, the vast majority of children in the system come to the U.S. by themselves.

The 13,000 figure has been exceeded only once before. Last fall, the total surpassed 14,000 children in custody for the first time in history, topping out close to 15,000.

That was due mainly to an administration policy under which Immigration and Customs Enforcement rigorously screened adults who were applying to take the children out of custody. The change slowed the process and often deterred such sponsors, usually family members, from coming forward. ICE also arrested some for being undocumented immigrants.

The practice so infuriated members of Congress that in a government funding bill in February, they barred ICE from using the information it collected as part of the screenings to arrest immigrants.

The Trump administration instituted a policy in December to try to release undocumented children from its custody more quickly, rescinding its requirement to fingerprint every adult in the home where the child would be living. Only the adult sponsoring the child is fingerprinted now.

By January, that had brought the number of children in custody below 11,000, according to Health and Human Services, with thousands of beds available.

More here : https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigrant-children-in-US-custody-soaring-back-13834123.php

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

Always great to get Tal’s timely and highly readable reporting!

What’s the solution? Well, it’s not the Trump Administration’s “preferred solution” of allowing the Border Patrol to mindlessly rocket vulnerable kids back to the Northern Triangle to be killed, tortured, exploited, abused, or forced to join gangs. It’s actually part of a worldwide trend that has seen more and more of the total refugee population comprised of children. So, this phenomenon shouldn’t have come as a surprise to a competent Administration focused on dealing with refugee situations humanely under the laws.

A rational solution would be to work closely and cooperatively with NGOs with expertise in child refugees (like, for example, Kids In Need Of Defense (“KIND”) or the Safe Passage Project), pro bono lawyers, and communities to figure out what is in the best interests of these children.

Then, pursue the right options: Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (”SIJS”) for some; expedited grants of asylum through the Asylum Office under the Wilberforce Act for others; TPS for others, recognizing the reality that there is an “ongoing state of armed conflict” in the Northern Triangle; an exercise of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) for others; and humane and organized repatriation for others, where that is actually in the child’s best interests.

There are plenty of tools available under existing laws to deal with this issue. We just have an Administration that refuses to use them and prefers to create a “crisis” to justify “throwing children under the bus.” Mistreating children is cowardly and bodes ill for the future of any country that permits it to happen. What goes around comes around!

PWS

05-10-19

COURTSIDE HISTORY: BEYOND TRUMP’S MYTHICAL “WHITE NATIONALIST NATION” LET’S SEE WHO BESIDES ENSLAVED AFRICAN AMERICAN FORCED MIGRANTS DID THE WORK THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT — The Essential Role Of Despised Chinese Immigrants! — “Chinese workers were often left out of the official story because their alienage and suffering did not fit well with celebration. . . .Without them, Leland Stanford would probably be at best a footnote in history — and the West and the United States would not exist as we know it today.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=258d1f6b-0c42-4c29-925d-a144ec4f47b1

Professor Gordon Chang of Stanford University writes in the LA Times:

Immigrants got the job done

History finally has its eyes on Chinese laborers who built transcontinental railroad’s western leg

By Gordon H. Chang

The nation’s first transcontinental railroad, completed 150 years ago today at Promontory Summit in Utah, connected the vast United States and brought America into the modern age. Chinese immigrants contributed mightily to this feat, but the historical accounts that first transcontinental followed often marginalized their role.

Between 1863 and 1869, as many as 20,000 Chinese workers helped build the treacherous western portion of the railroad, a winding ribbon of track known as the Central Pacific that began in Sacramento.

At first, the Central Pacific Railroad’s directors wanted a whites-only workforce. Leland Stanford, the railroad’s president, had advocated for keeping Asians out of the state in his 1862 inaugural address as governor of California. When not enough white men signed up, the railroad began hiring Chinese men for the backbreaking labor. No women worked on the line.

Company leaders were skeptical of the new recruits’ ability to do the work, but the Chinese laborers proved themselves more than capable — and the railroad barons came to consider them superior to the other workers.

My colleagues and I initiated an international research project — based, appropriately, at Stanford University — to investigate the enormous contribution Chinese workers made to the transcontinental project. It proved to be a formidable task, not least because no written record produced by what were called “railroad Chinese” is known to exist. Without letters, diaries and other primary sources that are historians’ stock in trade, we amassed a sizable collection of evidence that included archaeological findings, ship manifests, payroll records, photographs and observers’ accounts.

The material allowed us to recover a sense of the lived experiences of the thousands of Chinese migrants Leland Stanford came to greatly admire. He told President Andrew Johnson that the Chinese were indispensable to building the railroad: They were “quiet, peaceable, patient, industrious and economical.” In a stockholder report, Stanford described construction as a “herculean task” and said it had been accomplished thanks to the Chinese, who made up 90% of the Central Pacific Railroad’s labor force.

These workers showed their mettle, and sealed their legacy, on the peaks of the Sierra Nevada. Many observers at the time had assumed that Stanford and the railroad were daft for thinking they could link California with the East because an immense mountain range separated the state from Nevada and beyond. The Sierra Nevada is a rugged, formidable range, its inhospitableness encapsulated by the gruesome tragedy of the Donner party in 1847 and 1848. Trapped by winter storms in the mountains, they resorted to cannibalism.

To get to the High Sierra, Chinese workers cut through dense forests, filled deep ravines, constructed long trestles and built enormous retaining walls — some of which remain intact today. All work was done by hand using carts, shovels and picks but no machinery.

The greatest challenge was to push the line through the Sierra summit. Solid granite peaks soared to 14,000 feet in elevation. The railroad bed snaked through passes at more than 7,000 feet. The men who came from humid south China labored through two of the worst winters on record, surviving in caverns dug beneath the snow.

They blasted out 15 tunnels, the longest nearly 1,700 feet. To speed up the carving of the tunnels, the Chinese laborers worked from several directions. After opening portals along the rock face on either side of the mountain, they dug an 80-foot shaft down to the estimated midway point. From there, they carved out toward the portals, doubling the rate of progress by tunneling from both sides. It still took two years to accomplish the task.

The Chinese workers were paid 30% to 50% less than their white counterparts and were given the most dangerous work. In June 1867, they protested. Three-thousand workers along the railroad route went on strike, demanding wage parity, better working conditions and shorter hours. At the time it was the largest worker action in American history. The railroad refused to negotiate but eventually raised the Chinese workers’ pay, though not to parity.

After the Sierra, the Chinese workers faced the blistering heat of the Nevada and Utah deserts, yet they drove ahead at an astonishing rate.

As they approached the meeting point with the Union Pacific, thousands of them laid down a phenomenal 10 miles of track in less than 24 hours, a record that has never been equaled. A Civil War officer who witnessed the drama declared that the Chinese were “just like an army marching over the ground and leaving the track behind.”

Progress came at great cost: Many Chinese laborers died along the Central Pacific route. The company kept no records of deaths. But soon after the line was completed, Chinese civic organizations retrieved an estimated 1,200 bodies along the route and sent them home to China for burial.

The transcontinental railroad’s completion allowed travelers to journey across the country in a week — a trip that had previously taken more than a month. Politicians pointed to the achievement as they declared the United States the leading nation of the world.

The transcontinental railroad has been viewed in a similarly nationalistic way ever since. Chinese workers were often left out of the official story because their alienage and suffering did not fit well with celebration. And attitudes toward them soon soured, with anti-Chinese riots sweeping the country. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States and placed restrictions on those already here.

Federal immigration law prohibited Chinese citizens from becoming Americans until 1943.

As a faculty member of the university that bears his name, I am painfully aware that Leland Stanford became one of the world’s richest men by using Chinese labor. But I also try to remember that Stanford University exists because of those Chinese workers. Without them, Leland Stanford would probably be at best a footnote in history — and the West and the United States would not exist as we know it today.

Gordon H. Chang is a professor of history at Stanford University.

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

Sometimes, it takes too long. Often, the “real heroes” die unrecognized (like the more than 1,200 Chinese workers mentioned in this article or the many anonymous enslaved African-Americans whose uncompensated labor and ingenuity “propped up” at least five of our first seven Presdients) long before justice comes. And, frequently, the flawed folks who were wrongly acclaimed “popular heroes” of their day escape judgement within their lifetimes.

But, history has a way of eventually “getting it right.” Trump and his misguided followers eventually will be in for a reckoning.

It won’t be pretty. Once the subpoenas can’t be ignored, the testimony perjured, the innumerable lies, intentional misrepresentations, and squalid distortions presented as “business as normal,” and the full historical record becomes available for study and analysis, free from the political hoopla of the present, it will be much, much worse than we can possibly imagine. The true unpalatable nature of Trump and his enablers will be revealed for some future generations. And, those who stood against them and their racism, greed, dishonesty, and cruelty will be vindicated.

PWS

05-10-19

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST: Trump’s Invented Border Crisis Channels Jim Crow: “The real crisis is that we have a president who wants to put up a “No Vacancies” sign for nonwhite immigrants — just like the “No Coloreds” signs I used to see in the Jim Crow South.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-invented-an-immigration-crisis-to-further-his-most-consistent-goal/2019/04/15/b2049ba0-5fbd-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

The Trump administration has manufactured and exacerbated an immigration “crisis” to further the president’s most consistent goal: to Make America White Again.

Tens of thousands of Central American asylum seekers, even hundreds of thousands, do not constitute a serious crisis — not for a continent-spanning nation of 330 million, a nation built through successive waves of immigration. The migrants have severely taxed and at times overwhelmed the systems at the border that must process and adjudicate their claims for refuge, but this is a simple matter of resources. We need more border agents, more immigration judges, more housing.

President Trump, however, treats the migrant surge like an existential threat. “We can’t take you anymore. We can’t take you. Our country is full,” he said this month at the border in California. But, of course, our vast nation is anything but full. Instead of “can’t,” what Trump really means is “won’t.”

On almost any issue you can think of, Trump is all over the map. But there is one position on which he has never wavered: antipathy toward nonwhite immigration. From his campaign charge that Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” to his fruitless quest to get funding for a border wall, to his gratuitously cruel policy of family separations, to his declaration of a national emergency, Trump has left not an iota of doubt about how he feels.

To be sure, sometimes the president uses anti-immigration rhetoric to inflame his base. But unlike with other issues, Trump seems actually to believe his demagoguery about would-be Latino migrants.

The administration acts as if it considers the asylum seekers to be less than human. What other conclusion can be drawn, after thousands of young children were taken from their parents and shipped to detention centers far away, as a deterrent to others who might seek entry? How else can anyone characterize the notion — now under active consideration, according to the White House — of transporting migrants hundreds or thousands of miles, not out of necessity but simply so they can be released in “sanctuary cities” and the districts of Trump’s political opponents?

Trump threatened to close the border. Here’s what could happen if he did

President Trump has pivoted from closing the southern border to imposing new tariffs on Mexico. But who will be the most affected? (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

That last Bond-villain idea is apparently the brainchild of White House adviser Stephen Miller, who seems to be the closest thing Trump has to an operational chief of staff — someone who shares his vision, however warped, and will move heaven and earth to bring it to life.

Miller’s history as an anti-immigration zealot goes back to his time as an aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) , who became Trump’s first attorney general. It is no exaggeration to say that Sessions, both in the Senate and in the Cabinet, was obsessed with reducing immigration, legal as well as illegal. Sessions is gone from the administration, but Miller remains, and clearly he has Trump’s ear.

Trump has said that the countries from which asylum seekers and economic migrants are fleeing are not sending “their best” people, and that entry should be based on “merit,” not on family connections. That would be a complete departure from the immigration policies that allowed Trump’s and Miller’s forebears to come to this country, but it sounds debatable — until you take into account Trump’s other remarks. He has reportedly disparaged nonwhite countries with a vulgar epithet and expressed a preference for immigrants from places like Norway, which happens to be one of the whitest countries on the planet. In the context of immigration policy, he has regaled crowds with the story — likely apocryphal — of his friend “Jim,” who used to go to Paris all the time but doesn’t anymore because “Paris is no longer Paris.”

Trump isn’t talking about gridlocked traffic on the Boulevard Peripherique. He’s talking about the black and brown immigrants who are changing the city’s complexion.

Does Trump seek political gain by stoking white Americans’ fears of the “browning” of the United States due to Latino immigration? Absolutely. But if his racism were purely situational — like his professed commitment to fiscal responsibility, or his supposed social conservatism — he would depart from it occasionally. And he doesn’t.

He might at least feign compassion for men, women and children who risk their lives to flee deadly violence at home. Instead, Trump cut off aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, the countries from which most of the asylum seekers are coming. He does not comfort or embrace. He seeks only to punish.

The real crisis is that we have a president who wants to put up a “No Vacancies” sign for nonwhite immigrants — just like the “No Coloreds” signs I used to see in the Jim Crow South.

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

Yup!

MAWA can’t possibly work. But, it could destroy America!

PWS

04-18-19

TRUMP SCOFFLAWS OUTED AGAIN: Even As Lawless Prez & His Band Of Brigands Considers More Illegal Retaliatory Political Action, U.S. District Judge Slams Termination Of Haitian TPS: “Trump administration . . . being motivated by politics and not facts!” – So, What Else Is New In World Of White Nationalism & Fabricated “Facts?”

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article229151574.html

Jacqueline Charles reports for the Miami Herald:

Accusing the Trump administration of being motivated by politics and not facts, a second U.S. federal judge is blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from forcing tens of thousands of Haitians to return to Haiti by ending their temporary legal protection.

In a 145-page federal ruling, U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz of the Eastern District of New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction preventing DHS from terminating Temporary Protected Status, TPS, for Haitians. Kuntz said 50,000 to 60,000 Haitians and their U.S.-born children would suffer “irreparable harm” if the legal protection ended and they were forced to return to a country that is not safe.

Kuntz’s detailed ruling came out of a lawsuit filed by Haitians in Florida and New York, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS granted to Haiti by the Obama administration after its 2010 devastating earthquake. The administration has rescinded the protection for Central America and some African nations as well, sparking several lawsuits around the country.

“It’s a sweeping indictment of the political manner in which the Trump administration at the very highest levels of the government illegally terminated Protected Status for Haitians,” said Miami immigration attorney Ira Kurzban, one of several lawyers who filed the lawsuit.

In October, a federal judge in California granted a temporary injunction blocking the administration from deporting Haitian TPS holders and others as their termination deadlines approach. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted the temporary injunction as part of a California lawsuit filed by lawyers on behalf of TPS recipients from Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan who have U.S.-born children. The decision is being appealed by the government.

Kurzban noted that unlike the California case, which had not yet gone to trial when Chen issued his decision, Kuntz’s decision is the result of a full-blown trial. The New York lawsuit was the first of the five to go to trial.

“It’s far more detailed in its reasoning in respect to why what the government did was completely illegal,” Kurzban said of Kuntz’s decision. “It found findings on discrimination. … It found very clearly that the government’s decision was not only an arbitrary decision, but they violated their own procedures in reaching the conclusion that they reached.

“This is a direct and very detailed account of how the government acted in a completely arbitrary way,” he added.

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that then-Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke violated procedures and TPS holders’ due process when she ended the program for Haiti. They also cited emails and other internal government documents, including Duke’s handwritten November 2017 notes, to bolster the plaintiffs’ argument: that the White House was not interested in the facts about conditions in Haiti as DHS officials mulled over whether to continue to shield up to 60,000 Haitians from deportations, and Duke was under repeated pressure to terminate the program.

The decision, the suit alleged, was also rooted in the president’s “racially discriminatory attitude toward all brown and black people.”

“Clearly political motivations influenced Secretary Duke’s decision to terminate TPS for Haiti,” Kuntz said in his findings. “A TPS termination should not be a political decision made to carry out political motivations. Ultimately, the potential political ramifications should not have factored into the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS.”

Kuntz said he could not issue a final injunction, only a temporary one, because Haiti’s TPS designation, which was supposed to end on July 22 but was recently extended by DHS until January 2020 due to the legal challenges, has not yet expired.

Steve Forester, an immigration advocate who has been championing the rights of Haitians enrolled in the TPS program, said it was “a victory demonstrating the government’s unlawful and unconstitutional behavior in reaching its decision to terminate Haiti TPS.”

“It’s a resounding condemnation of unlawful government behavior,” added Forester, who works as policy coordinator for the Boston-based Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti.

The government is expected to appeal.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article229151574.html#storylink=cpy

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

The Trump Administration plans to tie up the Federal Courts with more frivolous litigation based on their knowingly and intentionally unlawful actions. That’s even as today, Trump refuted reports that he had discarded the idea of unlawfully “dumping” asylum applicants on so-called “sanctuary cities” as punishment to Democrats who have opposed his lawless regime. The Administration’s own lawyers say what Trump wants to do is illegal.

The lies come so fast and furious from Trump and his cronies that the White House “flacks” can’t even keep their fictional “cover stories” straight.

Fraud, waste, and abuse right in plain sight.

PWS

04-12-19

DAG ROSENSTEIN INADVERTENTLY MAKES COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT IN SPEECH TO NEW JUDGES — Places Emphasis On Executive, Fealty To Attorney General, Not Independence. Impartiality, & Insuring Due Process! — REAL “Courts” Don’t Answer to Prosecutors!

https://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbXNpZD0mYXVpZD0mbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTkwMzE1LjMyNjAxNDEmbWVzc2FnZWlkPU1EQi1QUkQtQlVMLTIwMTkwMzE1LjMyNjAxNDEmZGF0YWJhc2VpZD0xMDAxJnNlcmlhbD0xODQ4OTEzNiZlbWFpbGlkPWRrb3dhbHNraUBkYXZpZC13YXJlLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGtvd2Fsc2tpQGRhdmlkLXdhcmUuY29tJnRhcmdldGlkPSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2YXJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&101&&&https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-opening-remarks-investiture-31-newly

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Opening Remarks at Investiture of 31 Newly Appointed Immigration Judges

Washington, DC

~

Friday, March 15, 2019

Thank you, James, for that kind introduction. I appreciate your devoted service to the Department of Justice.

I also want to thank Deputy Chief Judges Santoro and Cheng, and Assistant Chief Judges Doolittle, Owen, Mart, and Weiss.

I am grateful to Marcia Lee-Sullivan and Karen Manna for helping to plan this event.

Above all, I want to congratulate our 31 new immigration judges for joining the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and welcome the family members and friends who are with us today.

I took my first oath as a Department of Justice employee in 1990. I hope it is as meaningful to you as it is to me. They have sworn me in several more times over the past three decades. But they never swear you out.

The oath obligates you to support and defend the Constitution. Our nation was not united by race, ethnicity, religion, or even national origin. The founders’ goal of bringing peoples of the world together in a single nation is reflected in the motto adopted at the founding of our Republic: e pluribus unum: from the many, one. Our one nation is unified by our shared commitment to the principles of the United States Constitution. The preamble sets forth, among its primary goals, to “establish Justice.” Justice – or the fair application of the rule of law – is the essence of America.

The right to live and work in America is a tremendous privilege. It is a valuable privilege. It is a privilege that has meaning only if we exercise our right and duty to protect it by setting rules for people who seek to acquire the privilege.

It is right and proper for us to insist that people who desire to join our nation – people who want themselves and their children to join the privileged group who define ourselves as “we, the people” – start by following the rules governing admission and citizenship.

The duties imposed by your oath of office include faithfully enforcing those rules.

America’s immigration laws are generous and welcoming, but they are intended to protect the rights and advance the interests of current and future citizens.

More than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt remarked that “[t]he average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation.” Roosevelt did not limit his remarks to birthright citizens. He said, “We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise …. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.”

Obeying the law when seeking entry to the United States is an essential component of “fealty to this country.”

Estimates suggest that there are more than 44 million people in our country who were not American citizens at birth. That is almost 14 percent of our population, the largest share in more than a century. America’s foreign-born population exceeds the total population of California, our most populous state, and it is larger than the entire population of Argentina.

Those numbers continue to grow. Every year, we generously extend lawful permanent resident status to more than one million people, and we allot hundreds of thousands of student visas and temporary work visas.

It is no surprise that so many people want to join us. According to the World Bank, nearly half of the world lives on less than $5.50 per day. According to a recent Gallup poll, 150 million people around the world want to immigrate to the United States. We cannot take them all.

For our system to be fair, it must be carried out faithfully and equitably. It must be fair to all who desire to come here — whether they live south of our border or an ocean away.

Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.

You take office at a critical time. The number of immigration cases filed each year is rapidly increasing. In February, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended 66,000 aliens who unlawfully entered our country between ports of entry along the southwest border. On average, our colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security encounter about 3,000 aliens every day along the southern border.

Most of them cross the border unlawfully, between points of entry. They chose not to follow the law. Because they do not follow the law, many of them expose themselves and their children to exploitation and abuse. Many pay criminal smugglers because they know that they might not be allowed to enter lawfully. Nonetheless, our legal system protects them.

The massive influx of aliens who arrive in America illegally and invoke due process rights under our law creates a staggering volume of immigration cases that require resolution.

The primary factor driving the increasing backlog is the significant increase in asylum applications. Asylum applications have more than tripled in less than five years.

Our asylum system was established in the aftermath of World War II. America seemed to have limitless space at that time, and the goal was to protect minority groups from persecution by foreign states, the kind of persecution that the world witnessed during World War II and which was prevalent at that time in the purges conducted by our erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.

The law authorizes asylum only for victims who suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of their political opinion.

Other reasons for seeking to immigrate may be rational and even laudable. We certainly understand why foreigners wish to come to America in search of better opportunities for themselves and their children. America is a great nation that does not need walls to keep its citizens from leaving, like the Soviet Union. We build walls only to protect ourselves and enforce our rules.

The duty of our immigration judges is to honestly find the facts and faithfully apply the laws, so that people obtain asylum only if they qualify for it under the statute.

We are taking steps to address the massive influx of cases. We are hiring more judges; we are holding more hearings; and we are completing more cases, more quickly.

Since President Trump’s inauguration, the Department of Justice has hired more immigration judges than in the previous seven years combined. We now employ the largest number of immigration judges in history. There are 48 percent more immigration judges than three years ago, and 71 percent more than five years ago.

And we are finding innovative ways to become more efficient. For example, the Department has had great success using video teleconference technology, which enables judges to share the case burden with one another across the country.

We will look for other ways to become more efficient and more effective. But ultimately we are depending upon you, both to perform your duties expeditiously, and to let us know when you identify opportunities for improvement.

One of my favorite management parables is about a child who watches her mother prepare a roast beef. The mother cuts the ends off the roast before she puts it in the oven. The child asks why. The mother says that she learned it from her mother. So the child asks her grandmother. The grandmother explains, “When your mother was a child, I cut the ends off because my pan was too small to fit the whole roast beef.”

The moral is that the solutions of the past are not necessarily the right solutions today. Circumstances change. Sometimes we need to reconsider assumptions and realign our practices to achieve our goals. The movie “Moneyball,” based on a book by Michael Lewis, summarizes the lesson in three words borrowed from Charles Darwin: “Adapt or die.” Some of the best ideas to enhance efficiency come from relatively new employees who are not accustomed to existing bureaucratic rules. If you think you know a better way to accomplish our mission, please speak up and let us know.

Our challenges are daunting. But you can be part of the solution.

Whether the immigration backlog continues to grow depends in large part on how immigration judges discharge their duties.

We chose you because of your qualifications, your legal skills, and your personal integrity. We believe that you are ready for this challenge.

Thank you for your willingness to serve, and welcome to the Department of Justice.

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

There were a few good things about Rosenstein’s presentation:

As I had predicted would happen under Barr, he improved the tone by ditching the overt appeals to White Nationalism, racist dog whistles, and misogyny present in most of Sessions’s rhetoric:
He also dropped the vicious, disingenuous attacks on the private bar that were a staple of Sessions’s anti-immigrant screeds;
He at least acknowledges that immigrants are a large permanent part of our society, although downplaying the truth that, contrary to Stephen Miller and other Trump restrictionists, we are, in fact, a “nation of immigrants;”
He acknowledges the obligation to be “fair to all who desire to come here — whether they live south of our border or an ocean away;”
He at least grudgingly recognizes that all who come here are entitled to certain protections under our legal system regardless of the circumstances of entry (something that the DOJ and the Administration actually have failed to respect in practice);
He also recognizes another truth that his Department often chooses to ignore — “Justice is not measured by statistics.” — Indeed, it is not — so why have mindless “quotas” that nobody working in or familiar with the system would have recommended? Why cite largely meaningless statistics about the number of individuals who would like to come here but never will?

But, there was also lots NOT to like:

Rosenstein mangles the oath of office; federal employees like Immigration Judges swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic — they DON’T swear to uphold or carry out the policies of the Attorney General (many of which have actually been found in violation of the law);
He creates a bogus “test” of “legal entry” as a demonstration of “fealty to our country;” there is no such equivalency or “second class citizenship.” — Although our system understandably often favors those who enter legally, there are a number of provisions that allow individuals who did not do so to eventually be granted citizenship, including those who are granted asylum; I am aware of no information that shows that manner of entry into the U.S. has any effect on one’s “fealty” or performance as a citizen; indeed, as a “native born U.S. citizen,” Rosenstein, like many of us, did nothing whatsoever personally to show his “fealty” or “earn” his citizenship — he was just lucky like we were;
Rosenstein keeps referring to “enforcement;” but Immigration Judges are NOT “law enforcement officers;” they are supposed to be fair and impartial quasi-judicial adjudicators; “enforcement” is the job of DHS and other parts of the DOJ (a glaring conflict of interest);
DHS officials are not the Immigration Judges’ “colleagues” to any greater extent than are lawyers in private practice or the individuals coming before the Immigration Courts; DHS is a “party” before the court and should be treated as such;
Rosenstein mis-states the history of our refugee laws. While the 1951 Convention was a response to World War II, the U.S. never became a party. We did sign the 1967 Protocol which was intended to update and expand the Convention and refugee law and move it beyond the immediate post-WWII aftermath. Our first codification of refugee and asylum law, the Refugee Act of 1980, was specifically intended to eliminate the types of ideological and geographical biases that had previously been a facet of our law; Rosenstein wrongfully implies that judges should interpret refugee law with a focus on a bygone era rather than considering refugee law, in the dynamic, protection-oriented manner it was intended, in the contexts of today’s world, where persecution based on gender is one of the major refugee producing factors;
Rosenstein cites televideo as a helpful “innovation;” televideo is hardly new; but the often inept way in which it has been implemented and used by EOIR means that it often has actually fueled, rather than solved, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” as shown in this very recent report from Beth Fertig at WNYC: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/03/15/beth-fertig-the-gothamist-mismanaged-immigration-courts-failed-technology-results-in-cancelled-hearings-more-aimless-docket-reshuffling-that-needlessly-impedes-due-process-ad/ Most of us who have actually worked in the system would say that while better televideo and a corps of “senior” and “reserve” judges might prove useful in many circumstances, they are least suitable and helpful for contested merits asylum cases;
Rosenstein neglects to mention the glaring failure of DOJ/EOIR to deliver on an even more important piece of technology for both the judges and the parties: e-filing which has been under development for nearly two decades without producing a functional product — a stunning piece of administrative incompetence by any standard and one that has helped contribute to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that plagues this dysfunctional system;
Rosenstein use of the term “generous” to describe legal immigration policy under Trump is outrageous; in a time of a growing worldwide refugee crisis, this Administration has cruelly and irrationally reduced refugee admissions to the lowest rate since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, while discouraging and placing bureaucratic roadblocks to discourage other forms of legal immigration, and intentionally misconstruing and perverting the law to make it more difficult for abused women from Central America to qualify;
Rosenstein fails to acknowledge that “forced migrants” are just that; they often enter illegally because they have little other choice, particularly when the Administration intentionally “slow walks” the applications of those who apply at legal ports of entry, forces those who have shown “credible fear” to remain in dangerous conditions in Mexico, and encourages smugglers to “turn in” individuals between ports of entry to avoid the Trump Administration’s short-sighted and arguably illegal policies;
Walls are not a symbol of strength as posited by Rosenstein; they are symbols of fear and loathing; in the USSR’s case it was directed at their own citizens; for the Trump Administration, walls are symbols of fear of Mexico, Mexicans, other Latin Americans, immigrants generally, and inferentially the real target — Hispanic citizens and all people of color in the U.S.;
Rosenstein’s final piece of jaw-dropping hypocrisy is to solicit solutions from the “new judges” to problems thrust on them by his Department’s malicious incompetence. Gimme a break, Rod! This Administration, like the last several, has made a point of ignoring any solutions generated from those who actually hear the cases in favor of those imposed to meet political goals that often undermine due process and judicial efficiency. Just ask the NAIJ how “receptive” the Trump DOJ has been to constructive suggestions. Ask almost any Immigration Judge about the idiotic and demeaning “case quotas” imposed on them over their objections. Moreover, this Administration has been “outed” in FOIA requests and court cases for ignoring well-supported fact-biased recommendations of career civil servants with expertise in various fields in favor of a preconceived racist, White Nationalist, restrictionist political agenda. Save your breath and ideas folks, for a future time after we get some much-needed “regime change” and the return of rational, unbiased, solution-oriented administration of justice instead of ideologues and their apologists like Rosenstein.

Rosenstein is on his way out the door at the DOJ. He’ll leave behind a mixed legacy. He’ll deserve great credit for protecting the Mueller investigation from Trump’s various attempts to interfere and compromise it. On the other hand, he drafted the infamous “pretext memo” which was part of the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to cover up Trump’s real real reason for firing FBI Director Jim Comey.

His failure to stand up for judicial independence, fairness, and due process for vulnerable individuals coming before our U.S. Immigration Courts and his continuing defense of the Administration’s indefensible and harmful White Nationalist immigration agenda will go down as one of his lesser moments.

America needs an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court where judges act fairly and impartially and owe allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, not the Attorney General or any other political official.

PWS

03-18-19

BIPARTISAN GROUP OF 58 NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS “CALLS B.S.” ON TRUMP’S BOGUS NATIONAL EMERGENCY!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-senior-national-security-officials-to-issue-declaration-on-national-emergency/2019/02/24/3e4908c6-3859-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html

Ellen Nakashima writes in the Washington Post:

A bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials issued a statement Monday saying that “there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The joint statement, whose signatories include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary Chuck Hagel, comes a day before the House is expected to vote on a resolution to block Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration.

[Read the letter: Former national security officials dispute Trump’s emergency declaration]

The former officials’ statement, which will be entered into the Congressional Record, is intended to support lawsuitsand other actions challenging the national emergency proclamation and to force the administration to set forth the legal and factual basis for it.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

Albright served under President Bill Clinton, and Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, served under President Barack Obama.

Lawmakers argue over Trump’s national emergency declaration

Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he supported President Trump’s national emergency declaration to build the wall Feb. 17. (Reuters)

Also signing were Eliot A. Cohen, State Department counselor under President George W. Bush; Thomas R. Pickering, President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations; John F. Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state; Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; Leon E. Panetta, Obama’s CIA director and defense secretary; as well as former intelligence and security officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations.

[Trump declares national emergency on southern border in bid to build wall]

Trump’s national emergency declaration followed a 35-day partial government shutdown, which came after Congress did not approve the $5.7 billion he sought to build a wall.

In announcing his declaration, Trump predicted lawsuits and “possibly . . . a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling” before winning at the Supreme Court.

Trump’s actions are also drawing criticism from at least two dozen former Republican congressmen, who have signed an open letter urging passage of a joint resolution to terminate the emergency declaration. The letter argues that Trump is circumventing congressional authority.

A secondary border wall is under construction in Otay Mesa, Calif. (Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images)

The former security officials’ 11-page declaration sets out their argument disputing the factual basis for the president’s emergency.

Among other things, they said, illegal border crossings are at nearly 40-year lows. Undetected unlawful entries at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased from 851,000 to nearly 62,000 between 2006 and 2016, they said, citing Department of Homeland Security statistics.

Contrary to the president’s assertion, there is no documented emergency at the southern border related to terrorism or violent crime, they said, citing administration reports and independent think tank analyses.

[When Trump declared national emergency, most detained immigrants were not criminals]

Similarly, they state that there is no drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall along the southern border, noting that “the overwhelming majority of opioids” that enter the United States are brought in through legal ports of entry, citing the Justice Department.

They also argue that redirecting money pursuant to the national emergency declaration “will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.” And, they assert, “a wall is unnecessary to support the use of the armed forces,” as the administration has said.

Some of the same former officials wrote a joint declaration disputing the factual basis for the president’s order shortly after he took office in January 2017 barring entry to foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The former officials asserted that the order was not based on a bona fide national security assessment but on “a deliberate political decision to discriminate against a religious minority.”

Their views were filed as a joint declaration and later as a friend-of-the court brief in lawsuits challenging the original order and subsequent revisions, and it was cited by almost every federal judge who enjoined the ban. By the time the challenges reached the Supreme Court, the administration had significantly narrowed the ban, which the high court upheld on a 5-to-4 vote.

With respect to the declared national emergency, plaintiffs have filed two cases in the District of Columbia, two in California and one in Texas.

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

It definitely will be worth noting for posterity those in the GOP who vote to sell out America by failing to stand up to Trump’s bogus national emergency ploy.

We also shouldn’t forget that if the GOP weren’t willing to sell out America because of fear of the “Off-base Trump Base” the vote to overturn his national emergency would be overwhelming and thereby “veto-proof.” A body that won’t stand up for its own Constitutional prerogatives, isn’t likely to strand up for the rights of anyone else.

PWS

02-26-19

ORION DONOVAN-SMITH @ WASHPOST: Long-Time Liberian Residents Learn That No Group Is Too Small To Escape The Xenophobic Wrath Of The Trump Administration! — PLUS “BONUS COVERAGE” — My “Saturday Essay” — “ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/end-of-immigration-program-gives-liberians-in-us-a-choice-leave-their-american-children-or-become-undocumented/2019/02/20/03b3cae6-30db-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Orion writes:

MAPLE GROVE, Minn. — Magdalene Menyongar’s day starts with a 5:30 a.m. conference call with women from her church. They pray together as Menyongar makes breakfast and drives to work, reflecting on everything they are thankful for.

But lately, the prayers have turned to matters of politics and immigration. They pray with increasing urgency for Congress or President Trump to act before Menyongar, 48, faces deportation to her native Liberia, where she fled civil war nearly 25 years ago.

In less than six weeks, the order that has allowed her and more than 800 other immigrants from the former American colony in West Africa to live in the United States for decades will end, the result of Trump’s decision last year to terminate a program that every other president since George H.W. Bush supported. Come March 31, Menyongar will face a choice: Return to Liberia and leave behind her 17-year-old daughter, an American citizen, or stay in the United States, losing her work authorization and becoming an undocumented immigrant.

“It’s hard to think about because you have built a life,” said Menyongar, who works as a certified nursing assistant. “Maybe it’s part of my brain that I try to block out. When I think about it, all I do is pray.”

A portrait of Menyongar outside her home in Maple Grove, Minn., on Feb. 3. She faces a decision: Leave her daughter in the United States and return to Liberia or stay and become an undocumented immigrant. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

Menyongar is among thousands of Liberian immigrants who were given temporary permission to stay in the United States in 1999, when President Bill Clinton implemented “deferred enforced departure.” DED was routinely extended by previous administrations but is set to end under Trump’s effort to terminate programs for immigrants without permanent status, which also has endangered Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and temporary protected status for immigrants from 10 other countries.

Temporary protected status, or TPS, was established by Congress in 1990 for citizens of countries suffering from war, environmental disaster, health epidemics or other unsafe conditions. They are given temporary permission to work in the United States and travel abroad without fear of deportation.

A class-action lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in a federal court in California seeks to block the Trump administration from ending TPS for immigrants from Honduras and Nepal. In October, a federal judge in the same court issued an injunction that stalled the end of TPS for citizens of four other countries.

But that court action does not apply to the smaller and lesser-known DED program, which operates purely at the president’s discretion and gives no statutory basis on which to sue.

Without a change of heart from the president — or new legislation from Congress — Liberians living in the United States under DED will lose their work authorization and become subject to deportation. Instead of self-deporting, many are expected to stay in the United States in hopes of getting a hearing in immigration courts, a process that could take years.

Trump has made curtailing illegal immigration a central tenet of his agenda, saying in his State of the Union address this month that immigrants should come to the United States “in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”

But critics say his move to end protection for Liberians, leaving them undocumented after decades in the country legally, reflects an immigration policy that is capricious and, at worst, driven by racial bias.

Menyongar gets ready for work. Her paychecks from two nursing homes help support relatives in Liberia. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

Family photos at Menyongar’s home. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

Menyongar and her daughter, Gabby, at home. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

“There comes a point where even if relief started as temporary, it needs to end with some possibility for permanence,” said Royce Murray, managing director of programs at the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group. “These are people who have built their lives here, have invested in their communities and are raising American citizens.”

Last week, a group of DED holders from Minnesota traveled to Washington to lobby representatives, and Democrats have responded with legislative efforts. Rep. Dean Phillips, a freshman Democrat who represents Menyongar’s Minnesota district, pushed unsuccessfully for a DED provision to be included in the spending bill Trump signed.

In addition, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) reintroduced a narrow bill he has pushed in every session of Congress since 1999 to offer Liberians with DED a chance to apply for permanent residency. A spokesman for Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez told The Washington Post the New York Democrat is working to include similar provisions in a broader immigration bill to be unveiled in the coming weeks.

Opponents of the programs say they have outlasted their original intent, to provide temporary protection, and represent a misuse of executive authority.

RJ Hauman, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors reduced immigration and greater enforcement, calls DED and TPS “flagrant abuses of our immigration system.”

“Both of these ‘temporary’ designations have been on autopilot for years, with one unmerited, open-ended extension after another,” Hauman said. “These individuals should return to their homeland, which has since recovered, and use their skills to enrich Liberian society.”

Like many Liberians who fled their country’s back-to-back civil wars between 1989 and 2003, Menyongar applied for asylum when she arrived in America in 1994. Her request was denied when she was unable to reach relatives in Liberia to get proof of her family ties to a politician there, whose prominence she feared would make her a target should she return. She was able to remain in the United States under TPS until 1999, when the program expired for Liberians and DED was created to extend protection to about 10,000 people at the time.

Liberians don’t have to register with the federal government to qualify for DED, so there’s no reliable count of how many people depend on the program. But as of March 2018, approximately 840 had work authorization under DED, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Liberians must have lived in the United States continuously since 2002 or earlier to qualify.

Most of the original DED beneficiaries have since left the country, died or gained permanent status, Murray said. She estimates as many as “a few thousand” may remain in the country but have not renewed their optional work permits, which cost a total of $495 in annual fees.

Permanent residency can come through political asylum, marriage to a U.S. citizen, family ties or an employer’s sponsorship. Menyongar’s husband, also a Liberian immigrant, died in 2011. Her attorney has advised that her surest option for a green card would be sponsorship by their daughter, Gabby Gworlekaju — something the teenager can’t provide until she is 21.

[American Girl: A 14-year-old prepares for life without her immigrant parents]

Gabby’s primary focus these days is preparing for college, possibly in Atlanta to be close to her father’s family and escape the frigid Midwest winters. She said she didn’t understand that her mother could have to leave until last March, when Trump declared a one-year “wind-down period” for DED. She has told her best friend how worried she is about the situation but avoids talking about it otherwise.

“It’d be a life-changing choice,” Gabby said. “That would mean that my mother would have to physically be removed out of my life, and I’d have to continue on. I can’t even explain how I would react.”

Some members of Bethel Robbinsdale’s congregation may face deportation when deferred enforced departure ends. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

Pastor Natt J. Friday preaches at Bethel Robbinsdale on Feb. 3. “These people, if you grant them permanent residence, they are going to be so patriotic,” he said. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

The choir sings at Bethel Robbinsdale on Feb. 3. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

A second family, a second home

Minnesota is home to the nation’s largest Liberian community, concentrated in the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis. A few times each week, Menyongar makes a 20-minute drive to Bethel Robbinsdale — one of several Liberian churches in the Twin Cities area — where she serves as president of the women’s ministry.

After communion during a recent Sunday service, the band and choir struck up a euphoric tune while Menyongar joined the congregation in dancing through the pews. Dressed in a brightly colored jumpsuit and a turquoise head wrap, she exchanged handshakes and hugs along the way.

“The church is my second family,” Menyongar said. “It’s like a support system that we have for each other.”

At one point during the two-hour service, the worship paused so a church member could announce an upcoming rally at the state capitol to raise the alarm about the end of DED. Later, Pastor Natt J. Friday led a prayer for those affected.

Friday knows Menyongar isn’t the only member of his church who could face deportation, but he can’t say for sure how many will. Many keep their immigration status secret.

“These people, if you grant them permanent residence, they are going to be so patriotic,” Friday said. “The burden would be lifted off their shoulders to know that they can finally live a normal life.”

Liberian immigrants have taken prominent positions in Minneapolis and its suburbs, such as Brooklyn Center, which recently elected its first Liberian-born mayor. They moved in part for the job market — a shortage of nurses and other health-care workers drew many, like Menyongar, to work in hospitals and assisted-living facilities.

Mary Tjosvold, who owns group homes for seniors and people with disabilities, employs more than 150 Liberians. Although she does not track how many of her employees are protected by DED, she said losing even a few workers would have wide ripple effects.

“People have had these jobs for a long time. They’re important parts of businesses,” said Tjosvold. “On an economic basis, it doesn’t make any sense, no matter what you think politically.”

[‘I feel this is my home’: Hundreds protest in Washington to support immigrants with temporary protected status]

An end to the policy also has economic implications abroad. Remittances sent from those working in the United States to their relatives in Liberia act as “a source of de facto foreign aid,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge and current adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School.

Menyongar works a combined 60-plus hours each week at two nursing homes, and her paychecks support her 97-year-old mother and other relatives in Liberia.

Schmidt said the idea that Liberians losing DED will self-deport is unrealistic.

“My experience is that most people go home not because they’re threatened, but because they deem it in their overall best socioeconomic interest,” he said. “A lot depends on what faces you at home, which is why this administration’s policy doesn’t work.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that supports sharp immigration restrictions, argues that a president should not be able to prolong temporary programs like DED without congressional approval. Even so, he said, “When we’ve permitted people to lawfully reside here for decades, it’s practically and politically and morally problematic to say, ‘Okay, now time is up.’ ”

Liberia has been emerging from war during the past 15 years and last year saw its first peaceful transfer of power since 1944. In a memorandum announcing the end of the temporary status, Trump wrote, “I find that conditions in Liberia no longer warrant a further extension of DED.”

Menyongar strongly disagrees with that assessment, citing violent crime, poor health care and infrastructure, and a lack of jobs in explaining why she could not return to her country of birth.

“The Liberia that I knew and grew up in is not the Liberia of today,” she said.

Menyongar worships at Bethel Robbinsdale. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)

This article was produced in partnership with the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, where Donovan-Smith is a student.

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

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: There Is Nothing Inherently Wrong With TPS Or DED — But, There Is Plenty Wrong With The Trump Administration’s Mistreatment Of 800 Long-Term Residents From Liberia

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

United States Immigration Judge (Retired)

Far from being a “problem,” as Trump and his restrictionist “naysayers” like to falsely claim, the TPS/DED program for Liberians has been a tremendous success! With a little “Congressional tinkering,” it could easily become a model for resolving future humanitarian situations without overburdening the US asylum system and adding to the huge existing U.S. Immigration Court backlog.

The US was able to provide humanitarian assistance to at least 10,000 Liberians during the darkest time for their country. This was accomplished without the time, expense, and often inconsistent and unsatisfactory results of forcing them into the formal US asylum system.

While in TPS/DED, Liberians were able to work legally, pay taxes, raise their families, live in peace, and otherwise contribute to American society. Over the years, many were over able to fit within our legal immigration system. Some died. Others found that with changes in Liberia, it made socio-economic sense for them to return there. A very few violated the rules of our hospitality and were duly arrested and removed after receiving Immigration Court hearings (most before the Trump Administration “trashed” due process in Immigration Court). The Government might even have turned a slight profit on the routine renewals of work authorization for which a fee was charged that probably exceeded the actual time it took to adjudicate them.

Now, we have approximately 800 long-term residents remaining who would like to stay here with their families, jobs, and communities. Passing the necessary legislative fix to allow them to get green cards should be a “bipartisan no brainer” — indeed if the Administration introduced and supported such a fix, it almost certainly would pass by huge margins and be signed into law. Presto — problem fixed and everyone wins! At a minimum, a rational Administration would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) to maintain the status quo and allow the few remaining Liberians to reside in the US and work legally pending good behavior and a legislative solution.

The law might or might not have been specifically designed for this outcome. But, wiser Administrations in the past used the available legal mechanisms along with Executive authority and common sense to solve human problems in a practical, efficient manner. Thanks exactly what “good government” is supposed to do.

That the Trump Administration chooses to use laws selectively to create “bogus emergencies” and “engineer problems” where none existed, rather than solving problems in a way that promotes the common good, should be of concern to all of us who favor good government and humane solutions to humanitarian issues.

PWS

02-23-19

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: There Is Nothing Inherently Wrong With TPS Or DED — But, There Is Plenty Wrong With The Trump Administration’s Mistreatment Of 800 Long-Term Residents From Liberia

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

United States Immigration Judge (Retired)

Related posts: