"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
A June photo released by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shows undocumented people at the central processing center in McAllen, Texas. Photograph: Handout/US Customs and Border Protection/AFP/Getty Images
All day and night they listened to the wailing of hungry children.
Here, in a freezing immigration detention facility somewhere in the Rio Grande valley of south Texas, adults and children alike were fainting from dehydration and lack of food.
Sleep was almost impossible; the lights were left on, they had just a thin metallic sheet to protect against the cold and there was nothing to lie down on but the hard floor.
This is the account of Rafael and Kimberly Martinez, who, with their three-year-old daughter, had made the dangerous trek from their home on the Caribbean coast of Honduras to the US border to ask for political asylum.
“The conditions were horrible, everything was filthy and there was no air circulating,” Kimberly Martinez told the Guardian of the five days the family spent cooped up in one facility they – like tens of thousands before them – referred to as “la hielera”: the icebox. Her husband added: “It’s as though they wanted to drain every positive feeling out of us.”
They knew, from following the news, that their ordeal of escaping gang violence back home and trekking across desert terrain at the height of summer would not end when they reached the United States.
What they did not expect, though, were days of hunger, separation and verbal abuse that they said they endured at the hands of federal immigration officials.
‘Caged up like animals’
All they were given to eat, they said, were half-frozen bologna sandwiches, served at 10 in the morning, five in the afternoon and two in the morning, and single sugar cookies for their daughter. What water they were given had a strong chlorine taste – a common complaint – and upset their stomachs.
The Martinezes (not their real name) were among dozens of asylum-seekers the Guardian interviewed in the border city of McAllen recently after they secured their provisional release from federal custody – with black electronic monitors fastened tightly around their ankles – and just before they continued their journeys by bus to the homes of US-based sponsors to await court hearings on their statuses.
The Guardian sat in with a team of volunteer doctors and nurses administering emergency medical care and listened as family after family gave jarringly consistent accounts of what they described as grim conditions in a variety of border detention facilities – conditions that have grown only grimmer since the advent of Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policies.
Activists in Los Angeles protest Donald Trump’s immigration policies, 30 June. Photograph: Mike Nelson/EPA
Officials said the allegations made by families about their experiences in detention did not equate with what they knew to be common practice and they insisted detainees were treated with dignity and respect.
The “hieleras”, or iceboxes, asylum-seekers said, were overcrowded, unhygienic, and prone to outbreaks of vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory infections and other communicable diseases. Many complained about the cruelty of guards, who they said would yell at children, taunt detainees with promises of food that never materialized and kick people who did not wake up when they were expected to.
At regular intervals, day and night, the Martinezes, and many others, said guards would come banging on the walls and doors and demand that they present themselves for roll call.
If they talked too loudly, or if children were crying, the guards would threaten to turn the air temperature down further. When the Martinezes gathered with fellow detainees to sing hymns and lift their spirits a little, the guards would taunt them, or ask aggressively: “Why did you bother coming here? Why didn’t you stay in your country?”
“Many of these agents were Latinos, like us, but they were people without morals,” Rafael Martinez said, his voice choking with tears. “There we were, caged up like animals, and they were laughing at us.”
. . . .
*******************************************
Read the rest of Gumbel’s shocking, disturbing, and downright infuriating report at the above link. If any other country treated vulnerable individuals seeking to exercise their legal rights to claim refuge under the Geneva Convention in this way we would call it just what it is — extreme cruel and inhuman treatment amounting to torture. Yet, somehow, the architects of this abhorrent, racist, wasteful, and dehumanizing system — Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and others — remain free and largely unaccountable.
They even have the absolute audacity to whine and complain when Federal Courts occasionally call them out for their gross contempt for the law and Constitution and force them to take corrective action — which they do grudgingly, disrespectfully, without apology, and ineffectively.
Just today, “Gonzo Apocalypto” was sputtering about Federal Courts issuing nationwide injunctions against some of his corrupt, illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral practices. What a totally disingenuous jerk! I don’t remember Ol’ Gonzo complaining when a single Federal Judge in Texas, Judge Hanen, tanked Obama’s “DAPA” program that would have helped hundreds of thousands of deserving parents of US citizens and green card holders (and also helped reduce the Immigration Court backlog). Heck, Gonzo even tried to use that decision as the bogus justification for terminating DACA, a step that even Judge Hanen is not very anxious to take. Unlike Gonzo, Judge Hanen at least understands that DACA individuals have substantial equities in the United States that Congress would be wise to recognize through legislation.
Undoubtedly, there is a need for some detention of dangerous individuals or some so-called “flight risks” pending the completion of immigration proceedings. But, it is only a minuscule fraction of the number now being unnecessarily and wastefully detained.
And, there is seldom any reason whatsoever for detaining women and children who have passed the credible fear process and seek asylum. Work with the private bar to get them represented, help them understand the system, including their obligations to appear at court and when summoned by DHS, and work with the U.S. Immigration Judges, the private bar, and the DHS Offices of Chief Counsel to get these cases scheduled in a reasonable manner.
For every case that DHS seeks “priority processing,” they should be required to offer prosecutorial discretion or “PD” to a “lower priority” case. That would eliminate the current Government practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), keep the court backlogs from growing out of control, and insure timely and fair processing of recent arrivals. The DHS would also be “incentivized” to agree or stipulate to well-documented, clearly grantable asylum cases, as they are supposed to do. That’s how the system could and should work pending enactment of more comprehensive immigration reform.
Additionally, individuals who satisfy “credible fear” should be offered an opportunity to apply first to the USCIS Asylum Office, before the case is sent to Immigration Court, since that office would already have a “preliminary workup” of the case.
There are lots of ways of improving this system and making it work better for the asylum applicants, their lawyers, and the DHS. But, they aren’t going to happen as long as irresponsible, biased, ethically and morally challenged “White Nationalist” officials such as Trump, Sessions, & Nielsen are in charge.
As many as 1,000 parents separated from their children are getting a second chance to stay in the US
In a huge reversal, the Trump administration is giving families another chance to claim asylum — and even some parents who’ve already been deported might be eligible.
A Honduran father and his 6-year-old son worship during Sunday mass on September 9, 2018, in Oakland, California. They fled their country seeking asylum in the US.Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Trump administration has just agreed to give parents who were separated from their children at the US-Mexico border earlier this year a second chance to make asylum claims in the US.
The Department of Justice has negotiated an agreement that covers three lawsuits filed against the government over the family-separation policy. Parents in the US who’d been ordered deported would get another chance to pass an interview demonstrating a “credible fear” of persecution — the first step in the asylum process.
If either the parent or the child passes the screening interview, families will be allowed to apply for asylum together. Some parents who don’t pass will be allowed to remain with their children in the US while the children’s cases are adjudicated.
And in some cases, the government is even willing to consider reopening cases for parents who were already deported from the US.
The agreement covers three lawsuits: Ms. L v. ICE, which forced the government to reunite separated families this summer; M- M- M- v. ICE, brought on behalf of children separated from parents; and Dora v. Sessions, a lawsuit from parents who had failed their initial asylum screenings because they were distraught after weeks of separation from their children.
If the agreement is approved by the federal judges overseeing the three lawsuits, it will result in a second chance for hundreds of parents. Muslim Advocates and the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represented the plaintiffs in Dora v. Sessions, believe it could give “well over 1,000” parents another chance at an asylum claim. And for many families, it will eliminate (or at least defer) the impossible choice between giving up a child’s legal case, and separating the family again by keeping the child in the US while the parent is deported.
Separating families made it much harder for parents to seek asylum
Under the Trump administration’s family separation policy, a parent who wanted to seek asylum in the US had one chance: to pass a “credible fear” screening interview with an asylum office.
If a parent passed the credible fear screening, he or she was given a chance to seek asylum before an immigration judge; if the parent failed, he or she could appeal the decision to an immigration judge, with much worse odds. Losing the appeal, or agreeing to drop the case, led to an order of deportation.
Generally, most asylum seekers pass their credible fear screenings. But evidence suggests that parents who were separated from their children often failed their interviews. Parents were often so consumed by grief over their separation from their children that they weren’t able to answer asylum officers’ questions fully and effectively, according to the lawsuit filed in Dora v. Sessions.
“Explaining the basis for an asylum claim is very difficult under the best of circumstances,” said one source familiar with the interview process but not professionally authorized to speak on the record. “When someone is a) detained, b) almost certainly unrepresented, and c) beside herself with fear and desperation because of having had her child taken from her,” the source continued, “it is almost impossible.”
By the time nearly 2,000 parents and children were reunited in July (thanks to Judge Dana Sabraw’s rulings in the Ms. L case ordering family reunification), the overwhelming majority of parents had already lost their cases and been ordered deported. But their children — who’d been placed on a separate legal track as “unaccompanied alien children” after being separated from their parents — often still had ongoing cases and a real chance of winning some form of legal status in the US.
So upon being reunited, hundreds of families were faced with the choice between returning to their home country together (and facing possible peril or persecution), and keeping the child in the US in hopes of winning asylum or another form of legal status — and separating the family anew. (Some parents alleged they weren’t even given this chance, and were coerced into withdrawing their children’s legal claims — and forcibly reseparated without warning if they refused to comply.)
None of this would have happened if families hadn’t been separated to begin with. Under normal circumstances, if either a parent or a child passed an asylum interview, the government would allow them both to file asylum claims. And obviously, parents who weren’t traumatized by family separation might have had a better chance with their interviews. But simply reuniting the family didn’t solve the problem.
The government is agreeing to give reunited families the same chance they’d had if they’d never been separated
Here is what the agreement proposed by the government would actually do, if approved:
Parents who passed their initial “credible fear” interviews for asylum will be allowed to continue; this agreement doesn’t change those cases.
Parents who had lost their cases and been ordered deported will be given a full review to reassess whether or not they have a credible fear of persecution. This review will include a second interview for “additional fact-gathering” — during which a lawyer can be present (or can dial in by phone). Parents will be allowed to do this even if they didn’t ask for a credible fear interview when they were first arrested.
Parents who fail their credible fear screenings will be allowed to remain in the US and apply for asylum if their child passes his or her credible fear screening. The reverse is also true: If a child fails her asylum screening but the parent passes his, both parent and child will be allowed to apply for asylum. This is the way things normally work when families are apprehended together; by instituting it now, the government is essentially wiping away the legal side effects of family separation.
Parents who aren’t eligible for a credible fear interview because they had been deported before and were returning will still be allowed to avoid deportation if they meet a higher standard (“reasonable fear”) and qualify for something called “withholding of removal.” Even if they fail that standard, they will be allowed to stay in the US while their children are going through their asylum cases.
Parents who have already been deported will not have their cases automatically reviewed by the government. However, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits will have 30 days to present evidence to the government that particular parents should be allowed to return, and the government will consider those requests. (The agreement doesn’t make it clear whether deported parents will have their own cases reopened, or whether they will solely be allowed to return to stay with their children while the children’s legal cases are ongoing.)
If the agreement is approved, it will officially send the legal fight over family separation into its endgame phase. While hundreds of parents and children remain separated, the legal fight over reunification is largely about who’s responsible for carrying out various parts of the government’s reunification plan; the new agreement would set a similar plan up for the legal due process of parents and children making claims to stay in the US.
It would almost certainly run into similar implementation obstacles to the reunification plan, but it would set expectations that the government would provide this process by default, rather than moving forward with deportation.
The Trump administration is never going to wholly be able to erase the consequences of its decision to separate families as a matter of course. But it is now agreeing to give up the legal advantages that it accrued by separating parents’ and children’s cases — and forcing parents to go through interviews with life-or-death stakes without knowing when or whether they’d ever see their children again.
**************************************
I’ve been saying it over and over again. Why not just do it right, provide full Due Process, and follow the law?
Not only are the policies being promoted by Sessions, Trump, and the rest of the GOP White Nationalists unconstitutional, illegal, vile, and immoral, they are totally wasteful of limited Government resources (particularly in a time of GOP-fueled budget deficits) and unnecessarily tie up the Federal Courts. Contrary to Jeff Sessions’s false narratives, no court system anywhere has unlimited time for all the nonsense that the Government could potentially pursue. When common sense and sane prosecutorial discretion lose out, they whole system suffers.
Think what might have happened if, instead of wasting time and money on illegal family separation, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and bending protection law out of shape, the Government had done the right thing and spent the money:
Working with NGOs and legal aid groups to release folks in locations where they could get legal assistance, virtually guaranteeing their appearance in Immigration Court;
Agreeing to grant the many domestic violence and other types of gang-related cases that could have been granted after proper preparation and documentation under a proper application of the law (before Sessions messed it up);
Taking all of the cases of long-term law-abiding residents off overloaded Immigration Court dockets so that the real contested asylum cases could be given priority without denying anyone Due Process or moving everything else back through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).
Any “bad guys,” or “true economic migrants” could have been given full hearings, denied, and removed. But, totally contrary to Sessions’s racist blather, most of the folks arriving are actually legitimate refugees. They could have been granted status and allowed to go out and work and study to make America better. I’ve found few individuals (including many native-born US citizens) more grateful and willing to work hard and contribute than those granted asylum.
The money spent on wasteful litigation and needless, cruel and inhuman, detention could instead have been used;
to establish a viable overseas refugee screening program in the Northern Triangle;
working with other countries to share resettlement responsibilities;
and trying to correct the situations in the Northern Triangle which gave rise to the refugee flows in the first place.
Sadly, this is hardly the first, and probably by no means the last, time that the US Government has been forced to reprocess large numbers of asylum seekers because of a failure to follow Due Process and do the right thing in the first place. Just check out the history of the ABC v. Thornburgh litigation and settlement (a case I was involved in during my time in the “Legacy INS” General Counsel’s Office).
Indeed, the Trump scofflaws are “doubling down” on every failed policy fo the past. They actually are at it again with their bone-headed proposal to thumb their collective noses at Judge Dolly Gee and withdraw from the Flores settlement and set up a “Kiddie Gulag” by regulation. Good luck with that. The Trump Scofflaws are already wasting your taxpayer money on more “tent cities in the Kiddie Gulag” that they almost certainly will be enjoined from using at some point. Then, cooler heads will prevail and we’ll undoubtedly have a “Flores II” settlement.
Also, compare the real role of immigration lawyers in enforcing the law and holding Goverment scofflaws like Sessions and Nielsen accountable with the totally bogus picture painted by Sessions in his false, unethical, and highly inappropriate speech to US Immigration Judges this week. Truth is exactly the opposite of nearly everything that Jeff Sessions says.
Our country can’t afford the scofflaw conduct, inhumanity, immorality, and wastefulness of Trump, Sessions, Miller and their racist White Nationalist cabal. Vote for regime change this Fall!
Sessions to immigration judges: Immigrants’ attorneys like ‘water seeping’ around law
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a new group of immigration judges Monday that it is their job to “restore the rule of law” to the immigration system over the contrary efforts of the lawyers who represent immigrants.
The remarks at the training of the largest-ever class of new immigration judges implied that the judges were on the same team as the Trump administration, and that immigrants and their attorneys were trying to undermine their efforts.
“Good lawyers using all their talents and skills work every day … like water seeping through an earthen dam to get around the plain words of (immigration law) to advance their clients’ interests,” Sessions said, adding the same happens in criminal courts. “And we understand that. Their duty, however, is not uphold the integrity of the act. That’s our duty.”
Sessions noted that “of course” the system “must always respect the rights of aliens” in the courts. But he also warned the judges of “fake claims.”
“Just as we defend immigrant legal rights, we reject unjustified and sometimes fake claims,” Sessions said. “The law is never serviced when deceit is rewarded so that the fundamental principles of the law are defeated.”
The comments came in the context of Sessions’ repeated moves to exert his unique authority over the immigration courts, a separate legal system for immigrants that is entirely run by the Justice Department.
Sessions approves every judge hired and can instruct them on how to interpret law, and thus decide cases, as well as how to manage cases. He has used that authority multiple times in the past year, including issuing a sweeping ruling that will substantially narrow the types of cases that qualify for asylum protections in the US. Those decisions overrode the evolution of years of immigration judges’ and the immigration appellate board’s decisions.
Sessions reminded the new judges of that authority and those decisions in his remarks, saying he believes they are “correct” and “prudent” interpretations of the law that “restores” them to the original intent.
Another totally inappropriate and unethical effort by Sessions to insure that migrants, particularly asylum seekers, receive neither fair consideration nor Due Process from U.S. Immigration Judges in connection with their, in many instances, very compelling cases for protection.
Let’s shine a little light of truth on the Sessions’s dark myth-spinning:
As recently as 2012, the majority of asylum applicants who received decisions on the merits of their claims in Immigration Court were granted protection;
Conditions in most “sending countries” — particularly those in the Northern Triangle — have gotten worse rather than better;
There is no reasonable explanation for the large drop in approvals in recent years other than bias against asylum seekers;
Even after Sessions took over, 30% of those who get merits determinations won their cases;
The success rate is higher for those released from detention and given fair access to counsel;
Most detained migrants, particularly those intentionally detained in substandard conditions in obscure locations, do not have reasonable access to counsel;
Most attorneys representing detained asylum seekers serve pro bono or for minimal compensation (particularly in relation to the amount of time and effort required to prepare and present an asylum case in detention);
Detention of asylum seekers simply to deter them from coming is illegal;
Separation of families is a deterrent is also illegal;
Neither detention nor “zero tolerance” prosecutions have been shown to have a material impact on the flow of refugees to our Southern Border;
Sessions has provided no evidence of any widespread fraud in asylum applications by refugees from the Northern Triangle;
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), the leading interpreter of refugee and asylum protections, has consistently criticized the US’s overly restrictive approach to asylum adjudication;
Article III U.S. Courts continue to be critical of both the unlawful policies being promoted by Sessions and the fundamental errors still being made by the BIA and some Immigration Judges in analyzing asylum cases and claims under the Convention Against Torture;
According to the US Supreme Court, a chance of harm as low as 10% can satisfy the generous legal standard for asylum;
According to the UNHCR, asylum applicants should be given the “benefit of the doubt;”
Most of those who fail to get asylum, like the abused woman denied protection by Sessions in Matter of A-B-, face life threatening situations in their home countries — we have merely made a conscious choice not to offer them asylum or some alternative form of life-saving protection.
As Sessions sees that his time as Attorney General will likely come to an end before the end of this year, he is doubling down on his White Nationalist, xenophobic, racist, restrictionist, lawless agenda. He wants to inflict as much damage on migrants, refugees, women, and people of color as he can before being relegated to his former role as a rightist wing-nut. He also seeks to convince the Immigration Judges that they are not independent juridical officials but mere highly paid enforcement agents with an obligation to deport as many folks as possible in support of the President’s agenda.
I do agree with Sessions, however, that the newly-minted Immigration Judges have a tremendously difficult job. If they adopt his philosophy, they are likely to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US and to wrongly return individuals to death-threatening situations. On the other hand, if they carefully and fairly follow the law and give full consideration to the facts, they will be compelled to grant protection in many cases, thus potentially putting them on EOIR’s “hit list.” (Basically, new US Immigration Judges, even those with many years of civil service, can be “fired at will” by EOIR during their first two years of “probation” as judges.)
The only solution is an independent Article I Immigration Court that will guarantee that someone as totally unqualified as Sessions can never again impose his personal will and bigoted, anti-Due-Process views on what is supposed to be a fair and impartial court system.
New Government Study Attempts to Undermine Legal Orientation Program for Detained Immigrants
Sept. 7, 2018 –
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released “Phase I” of its review of the federally-funded Legal Orientation Program (LOP) this week. The review came after Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempted to end the program in April but was forced to reverse that decision after receiving significant bipartisan pushback from Congress.
The LOP, which is managed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Justice Department, offers legal education as well as referrals for free and low-cost legal counsel to noncitizens in immigration detention. The LOP was started in 2003 under President George W. Bush after a pilot study found that the LOP “helped DOJ ensure that all respondents had a clear understanding of their procedural rights, led to cases being completed more quickly, and increased availability of representation [to detainees] with potential meritorious claims to relief.”
While it is not a substitute for legal counsel, the LOP does provide important information to individuals in detention about their rights and the removal process. There have been multiple studies conducted on the LOP by the federal government, nonprofit organizations, and outside third parties that reaffirm its usefulness. Every study has shown the LOP decreases the average length of time a person is in immigration detention, saving the government up to millions of dollars annually.
The study is the first phase of a three-phase review to be completed by the end of October 2018. Among other findings, it alleges that LOP participants spend more time in detention, costing the government more money; that LOP participants are less likely to get attorneys; and that their cases take longer to resolve.
The report presents these findings and overall numbers to show its methodology but unfortunately does not make their underlying data available for analysis.
The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), the nonprofit organization who contracts with EOIR to run the LOP program, says this new study has “insurmountable methodological flaws in EOIR’s analysis.”
At DOJ’s request, Vera has completed and will submit its own study next week. Vera reports that it has “starkly different findings that prove the efficiencies” of the program—which would be in line with all studies of the LOP conducted over the last 16 years.
Given the Attorney General’s earlier attempts to unilaterally end the LOP, one could assume that the ultimate goal of these government studies is to justify ending the program. When evaluating the program, it will be important for Congress to take a critical look at these new DOJ studies and review them alongside the totality of evidence in support of the program. Without government-provided counsel, LOP is a critical resource for detained immigrants to receive due process in a complex immigration court system.
America’s Immigration Courts (run by EOIR in the Department of Justice) are failing: disappearing Due Process, horrible morale, incredible backlogs, little automation, and constant legal errors highlighted by the Article III Federal Courts. The highly acclaimed Legal Orientation Program (“LOP”), which helps detained migrants understand their rights and obtain self-help materials, is one of the few bright spots among the carnage. The LOP actually has strong bipartisan support.
So, why would a failing agency “mess with success?” In April 2018, the Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”) a radical right-wing restrictionist group with strong ties to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, raised questions about the value of the LOP. In the process, CIS made the absurd suggestion that overwhelmed and stressed out Immigration Judges could better perform the LOP’s functions. I certainly found this untrue.
Not surprisingly, shortly after the CIS article appeared, Sessions pressured EOIR into “suspending” the LOP pending a cost-benefit analysis. Only the bipartisan outrage in Congress forced Sessions to back down and “temporarily reinstate” the program. Obviously, the pre-ordained decision by Sessions to can the program because it helped migrants and supported Due Process needed some more work.
Now, the EOIR apparatchiks have obliged Sessions by presenting a skewed analysis that conflicts with every other analysis of the LOP. The study also equates shorter hearings and faster deportations of detained individuals, therefore supposedly saving the Government millions of detention dollars, with better results. But, Due Process is supposed to be about fair process, not just results the Government favors.
To give the obvious analogy, I’m sure that the vast majority of criminal defendants are ultimately convicted of something. But, that doesn’t mean that investing in the process of conducting fair trials, rather than racing everyone through the system without a fair chance to put in a defense, is constitutionally permitted.
Over the past few months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has faced fierce criticism for his role in the Trump administration’s family separation policy. But while the White House continues to deal with the fallout from tearing kids away from their parents at the border, Sessions has been busy orchestrating another, much quieter attack on the country’s immigration system.
Tensions have been simmering for months between the attorney general and the hundreds of judges overseeing immigration courts, but they reached a new high in July. The flashpoint was the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan man who was scheduled to appear in a Philadelphia immigration court, but had repeatedly failed to turn up. The judge, Steven Morley, wanted to determine whether Castro-Tum had received adequate notice, and rescheduled a hearing for late July. But instead of waiting for that appointment, the Justice Department sent a new judge from Virginia to take over the case. Judge Deepali Nadkarni subsequently ordered Castro-Tum deported.
The move sparked immediate outcry: The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing about 350 immigration judges, filed a formal grievance, and 15 retired immigration judges released a public statement condemning the action. “Such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable,” they wrote.
This was just the latest of many accusations that Sessions and his Justice Department were interfering with judicial independence in immigration courts. Since the beginning of the year, the attorney general has severely limited judges’ ability to manage their cases, increased pressure on judges to close cases quickly, and dramatically reshaped how America determines who it will shelter. While Sessions isn’t the first attorney general to exercise these powers, immigration advocates say he’s using his authority in unprecedented ways and as a result severely limiting due process rights for migrants.
Unlike most courts, immigration courts are housed within the executive branch, meaning immigration judges are actually DOJ employees. Sessions is therefore ultimately in charge of hiring judges, evaluating their performance, and even firing them. He can also refer cases to himself and overrule previous judges’ decisions, setting precedents that effectively reshape immigration law.In a little more than six months, Sessions has issued four consequential decisions on immigration cases he referred to himself, in some instances overturning decades of legal precedent. Attorneys general under the Obama administration used that power only four times over eight years.
“We’re seeing Attorney General Sessions take advantage of the structural flaws of the immigration court system,” says Laura Lynch, the senior policy counsel at AILA, which has joined the judges’ union in asking Congress to make the immigration courts independent of the Justice Department.
Sessions’ changes have been “extremely demoralizing,” says Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “I’ve been in the field for 40 years, and I have never seen morale among immigration judges so low.”
Here are the biggest ways Sessions is attacking the immigration courts:
It’s now much more difficult to apply for asylum
In June, Sessions overturned a decision granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman, known in court documents as A-B-, who had escaped an abusive husband. He used the case as an opportunity to declare that migrants can’t generally be given asylum based on claims of domestic abuse or gang violence—a catastrophic blow to the tens of thousands of Central American migrants fleeing these dangers.
Sessions’ decision, though, doesn’t just affect how judges can rule. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that helps process asylum cases, interpreted his decision to mean that survivors of domestic and gang violence usually won’t pass their initial “credible fear” interviews after they cross the border—a first step that determines whether asylum seekers are even allowed to make their case before a judge. As Mother Jones’ Noah Lanard has reported, immigration lawyers say they’ve seen “overwhelming” numbers of migrants denied at the credible fear interview stage since Sessions’ decision.
In a statement, a group of former immigration judges described this decision as “an affront to the rule of law,” pointing out that it challenges longstanding protections for survivors of gender-based violence. “Women and children will die as a result of these policies,” Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, toldMother Jones when the decision was first announced.
A group of asylum seekers is now suing Sessions in federal court, arguing that this new policy violates due process rights and contradicts existing immigration law. They say that the policy’s sweeping generalizations ignore the requirement that each case be heard on its own merits.
Making matters even more complicated, in another decision earlier this year, Sessions vacated a 2014 precedent that guaranteed asylum applicants have the right to a full hearing before a judge can decide on their case. “The implications of [the new decision] are tremendous,” says Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of Law and one of the lawyers representing A-B- and the asylum seekers suing Sessions. “It’s basically saying that a judge can decide a case on the papers alone, and not allow an individual the right to present their case in front of that judge.”
Judges have less control over their case loads …
This summer wasn’t the first time Castro-Tum’s case drew national attention. Judge Morley had “administratively closed” the case back in 2016—a common step that judges have used to set aside thousands of cases, oftentimes when immigrants had no criminal background or had been in the US for many years and had family ties. Though the cases weren’t technically closed, they were put on hold and typically never re-opened, usually so judges could focus on higher-priority cases.
Earlier this year, Sessions re-opened Castro-Tum’s case by referring it to himself, and used it to severely restrict when judges could use administrative closure. That sent the case back to Morley, which is how the DOJ ended up replacing the judge and sparking widespread outrage.
The judges union has said that administrative closure is an important and necessary tool for judges to manage their caseloads, and removing it would result in an “enormous increase” in a court backlog that’s already piling up with almost 750,000 cases. Sessions’ decision also noted that cases which had previously been administratively closed, such as Castro-Tum’s, could now be re-opened, potentially adding thousands more cases to the backlog and creating further uncertainty for the defendants.
… and will have to move through them more quickly
In a somewhat related move, in April, Sessions and the Justice Department announced new performance metrics for judges. According to a DOJ memo, judges would now need to complete at least 700 cases a year, as well as close cases within a certain time period, in order to receive a satisfactory performance review. If they fail to receive satisfactory marks, judges could potentially lose their jobs or be relocated. According to the memo, judges currently complete on average 678 cases a year. The new measures will go into effect October 1.
The judges’ union, legal scholars, and other associations have strongly criticized the move, noting that case quotas would place enormous pressure on judges to quickly complete cases and affect their ability to fully hear cases—likely leading to more deportations.
“A tough asylum case takes about three to four hours to complete, but they’re pushing judges to schedule three or four cases a day, which is probably twice as many as most judges could do and do a good job on…It’s basically inviting people to cut corners,” says Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration. “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
It’s harder for them to reschedule cases
On August 16, Sessions limited the ability for judges to issue continuances, which they did to postpone or reschedule removal cases, often when a defendant was waiting for a visa or another kind of immigration benefit and needed time to resolve their pending applications. Sessions has determined judges can now only issue continuances under a “good cause” standard, such as when an immigrant is likely to succeed in their attempt to stay in the US, either by winning an asylum hearing or receiving a visa.
Several retired immigration judges sent a letter to Sessions the next day, calling his decision on continuances a “blow to judicial independence.” They noted that some judges may receive from 10 to 15 requests for continuances a day—and would now need to spend time writing decisions on them, in addition to hearing their cases. “Immigration Judges should be treated as judges, and should be afforded the independent judgment that their position requires, including the basic power to control and prioritize their own case dockets,” the retired judges wrote. Advocates have also expressed concerns that immigrants could now be deported while waiting for another immigration benefit that would have given them legal status.
And as more judges retire, Sessions gets to staff up
Marks, of the judges union, notes there’s been a “tsunami” of retirements over the past two years. “Members of the association are telling us [that] they are leaving at the earliest possible opportunity or choosing to leave now because of the actions of the current administration,” she says. “They do not feel supported. They do not feel that they are free to make the decisions they need to make.”
Given the retirements, Sessions will have the ability to reshape the courts even further: Since January 2017, the DOJ has sworn in 82new immigration judges, and plans to hire at least 75 more this fall. Sessions has also worked to cut down the time it takes to hire judges.
What’s more, the Justice Department has faced allegations of politicized hiring. In April, House Democrats sent a letter to Sessions expressing concern that the DOJ had blocked several judges’ appointments for ideological reasons. The DOJ said in a statement to CNN that it “does not discriminate potential hires on the basis of political affiliation.”
Finally, while the DOJ has a long history of hiring judges with immigration enforcement backgrounds, the judges union has expressed concern that the DOJ may now be “over-emphasizing litigation experience” in its hiring practices, and “created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds.” As of last year, a little over 40 percent of immigration judges previously worked at the Department of Homeland Security.
Schmidt, the retired immigration judge, says he’s worried that even more new judges will come from prosecutorial backgrounds. “Who would really want to work for Sessions, given his record, his public statements?” he asks.
Under Sessions, he says, the immigration court “has become a deportation railway.”
Sent from my iPad
**********************
Great article, bringing together “all of the threads” of Sessions’s White Nationalist destruction of the U.S. Immigration Courts and his vicious racially-motivated attack on refugees from the Northern Triangle, particularly abused women and children.
For many years, “Gonzo Apocalypto” was a GOP “back bencher” in the Senate. His White Nationalist, restrictionist agenda was too much even for his GOP colleagues. His views were quite properly marginalized.
Suddenly, Trump runs for President on an overtly racist, White Nationalist, xenophobic platform. That’s music to Gonzo’s ears and he becomes the earliest Senate supporter.
Wonder of wonders, Trump wins, makes Sessions clone Stephen Miller his top immigration adviser, and appoints Gonzo as AG. His eyes light up. Suddenly, he’s free to dismember the entire Immigration Court, sack it’s Due Process vision, and attack migrants and refugees of color, particularly women, children, and families in ways that are both life threatening and permanently damaging.
He also gets a chance to dismantle civil rights protections, promote homophobia, disenfranchise minority voters, favor far right Evangelical Christianity, fill up prisons with the poor, black, and Hispanic, encourage police brutality against minorities, screw criminal defendants, disregard facts, harm refugees, and, icing on the cake, protect and promote hate speech. It’s a “dream come true” for a 21st century racist demagogue.
That Trump has mindlessly attacked his most faithfully effective racist, White Nationalist Cabinet Member says more about Trump than it does Sessions. Sessions is going to continue socking it to immigrants and minorities for just as long as he can. The further back into the era of Jim Crow that he can push America, the happier he’ll be when he goes on to his next position as a legal analyst for Breitbart or Fox.
Until then, there will be much more unnecessary pain, suffering, degradation, and even death on tap for migrants and their families.
Join the New Due Process Army — stand up against Session’s White Nationalist Agenda!
Trump admin seeks to keep immigrant families in detention indefinitely
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration has released a proposal to overhaul the way that undocumented immigrant families are treated in custody, a maneuver that would allow the government to keep the families in detention as long as their immigration court case remains open.
The proposed federal regulations would notably revoke the court case known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, which governs how undocumented children can be treated in custody. The regulations are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday.
The more than 200-page rule would have sweeping implications for the immigration detention system in the US and is likely to face swift resistance from advocates who brought the Flores case and those who have supported it.
One of the biggest proposed changes would create a federal license system to allow for detention centers that could hold families. The administration argues that it is the state-based licensing system that is causing issues that would restrict family detention.
The arguments for the rule are similar to the case the administration has made in court before Judge Dolly Gee, who oversees the settlement. Gee has rejected those arguments in her courtroom.
“This rule would allow for detention at (family detention centers) for the pendency of immigration proceedings … in order to permit families to be detained together and parents not be separated from their children,” the rule states. “It is important that family detention be a viable option not only for the numerous benefits that family unity provides for both the family and the administration of the INA, but also due to the significant and ongoing influx of adults who have made the choice to enter the United States illegally with juveniles or make the dangerous overland journey to the border with juveniles, a practice that puts juveniles at significant risk of harm.”
Pretty outrageous. But, about what we would expect from a racist White Nationalist Administration with no respect for the Constitution, laws, Federal Courts, or human dignity, and that is hell-bent on wasting our taxpayer money on evil causes.
I predict that this will “reactivate” the Flores litigation before Judge Gee. She, in turn, will “stuff” the Administration on its insulting, contemptuous, and clearly bogus justification for the detention.
These individuals are coming to the US seeking to exercise legal rights to apply for protection. Every reliable study shows that if released under alternatives to detention, informed of what the system requires, given adequate notice, and, most important, given reasonable access to lawyers they show up for their hearings nearly 100% of the time and actually prevail on the merits in a significant number of cases (the success rate is kept artificially low by the disingenuous anti-asylum jurisprudence created by Sessions and by a pre-existing legal bias in the system against many asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, also fanned and encouraged by Sessions’s overt xenophobia).
Stay tuned for another monumental waste of taxpayer money on yet another misguided Administration attempt to impose a White Nationalist immigration agenda!
Although it hasn’t caught the attention of the public or the media, the Supreme Court’s June 21 decision in Pereira v. Sessions has inspired immigration lawyers this summer, giving reason to hope and dream. Unfortunately, the case’s importance gets lost in the details to those not proficient in the field of immigration law. The issue that the Supreme Court agreed to decide was a narrow one: whether a Notice to Appear (i.e. the document that must be served by DHS on the Immigration Court in order to commence removal proceedings) that lacks a time and a date of the initial hearing is sufficient to invoke the “stop-time rule” that would prevent a noncitizen from accruing the 10 years of continuous presence in the U.S. needed to apply for a relief from deportation called cancellation of removal. If you are a layperson, I’m sure I’ve already lost you. But read on, as what preceded doesn’t really matter for purposes of our discussion; the important part is yet to come.
BIA precedent decisions that are subpar in their rationale are often upheld by circuit courts because of something called Chevrondeference. Chevron refers to a 1984 Supreme Court case requiring courts to defer to the interpretation of statutes by federal agencies that are specifically charged with administering the statute in question. The Board of Immigration Appeals is a part of one of the agencies (EOIR) charged with administering immigration laws; therefore, under Chevron, its decisions are owed deference by the circuit courts, even if those courts disagree with the BIA’s decision or would have reached a different outcome themselves. But before such deference is owed, the decision must pass a two-step test. First, the reviewing court must find that the statute the BIA is interpreting is ambiguous. This is important, because if the statute is clear on its face, there is no basis for the agency to have to interpret that which needs no interpretation. Only if the court determines that the statute is in fact ambiguous does it apply the second step of the test, which is whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
I’m pretty certain that I’ve lost even more readers in the preceding paragraph. I thank those of you who are still with me for your patience. In Pereira, the statute involved is section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states what information the Notice to Appear (i.e. the document needed to commence removal proceedings) must contain. In a 2011 precedent decision, the BIA had interpreted that statute to mean that the time and date of the initial hearing were not critical elements, and that their inclusion was not required to trigger the stop-time rule. Six federal circuits accorded Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpretation. The lone exception was the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve this split. In an 8-1 decision (in which even Justice Gorsuch, Trump’s appointee, joined the majority), the Court sided with the Third Circuit. The Court explained that no Chevrondeference was due because the statute was crystal clear, as it said in no uncertain terms that a time and a date are among the information a Notice to Appear must contain.
Finally, here is the really important part. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that a notice that does not contain a time and date of hearing “is not a notice to appear” under section 239(a). The highest court in the land did not say that it is not a notice to appear only for some narrow purpose; it bears repeating that it said without such information, the document is not a Notice to Appear.
Those of you who are still reading might feel let down about now. You’re saying “That’s it? Where is the big payoff I was promised? I’ll never get those three minutes of my life back that I just wasted reading jibberish about some kind of stopping rule that I still don’t understand.” So here is where I hope I make it worthwhile. All of us immigration lawyers read the above sentence and instantly thought the same thing: if the Supreme Court just said that a notice without a time and date is not a Notice to Appear, than almost every one of our collective clients were never properly put into removal proceedings. The Supreme Court decision mentioned that when asked what percentage of NTAs issued in the past three years lacked a time and a date, the government responded “almost 100 percent.” There are presently close to 750,000 cases pending before immigration courts, and there were hundreds of thousands of cases already decided by those courts over the past 15 or 20 years that also involved NTAs missing the time and date. And the courts are now going to have to find that nearly all of those proceedings were invalid. Old removal orders will have to be reopened and terminated. Almost all pending cases will have to be terminated. Although DHS will at least intend to restart all of those hearings over by now serving each individual with an NTA that does contain a time and date, how long might that take to accomplish? And even if they are placed into proceedings again, those who were previously denied relief get a second chance. Perhaps this time with a different judge, a better lawyer, and more equities in their favor?
So in a year in which the Attorney General has tried to remake immigration laws to his own liking, and continues to assault the independence of the only judges he directly controls; in which children have been unapologetically separated from their parents at the border, in which victims of domestic violence have been told the rapes and violent abuses they have suffered are will get them no protection in the U.S.A., Pereira allowed us to dream of pushing a “restart” button, a “do-over.” Attorneys began filing motions to terminate. The response of immigration judges was mixed, with some agreeing with the argument and terminating proceedings; while others said no, Pereira was only meant to apply to the narrow technical issue of the “stop-time” rule, and not to the broader issue of jurisdiction.
Of course, the BIA needed to weigh in on this issue. I had no doubt that the Board would rule with the latter group and find that proceedings need not be terminated. And of course, on Friday, that’s just what they did. The response from the legal community has been one of outrage. First of all, it normally takes 18 months or longer for the BIA to issue a precedent decision; it can sometimes take them many years. Here, the Board issued its decision in two months. As one commenter pointed out, it reads like a college freshman paper written at midnight. Considering the importance of the issue, the Board truly abandoned its legal responsibility by cranking out such a poorly written decision that fails to address (much less adequately analyze) most of the major issues raised by Pereira.
While I could go on and on with what is wrong with the BIA decision (issued on a Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend, the better to sneak under the radar), I’ll just focus here on one point. The decision (written by Board Member Molly Kendall Clark), cites the applicable regulation (8 C.F.R. section 1003.14(a)), which states that “Jurisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service.” As background, another section of the regulations defines “charging document” to include a “Notice to Appear.” The documents in question here all purport to be Notices to Appear, and do not meet the definition of any other charging document described in the regulation. Kendall Clark writes that the regulation does not specify what information must be contained in the charging document at the time it is filed with the Immigration Court, “nor does it mandate that the document specify the time and date of the initial hearing before jurisdiction will vest.”
Really? Because the U.S. Supreme Court just said, very clearly, that a notice lacking a time and date of hearing is not a Notice to Appear. How is it OK for the BIA to just ignore a crystal clear holding of the Supreme Court?
The answer is that in the mind of the BIA’s judges, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ability to fire them, while the Attorney General does. The other truth is that while BIA judges have been removed under Republican administrations for being too liberal, none has ever suffered any consequences under Democratic administrations for being too conservative. Although I’m in the liberal camp, I’m not saying that the BIA is not entitled to reach a conservative conclusion. But it can’t so blatantly disregard the law (in particular, a decision of the Supreme Court) out of self-preservation or political expediency.
The next step will be appeal of the issue to the various circuits. In light of Pereira, there should be no Chevron deference accorded to the Board’s latest decision. However, should another circuit split result, this issue may end up before the Supreme Court again.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
*************************************
Here’s a copy of the BIA’s precedent decision in
Matter of BERMUDEZ-COTA, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018):
Want to see a better, more logical approach that would have honored the Supremes’ reasoning in Pereira? Here’s a succinct, well-reasoned opinion from Judge Elizabeth Young of the San Francisco Immigration Court that refutes each ICE argument and shows why the BIA’s approach in Bermudez is likely to be rejected by at least some Circuit Courts.
(Thanks to Professor Alberto Benítez of the GW Law Immigration Clinic for sending this along.)
That no BIA Appellate Immigration Judge was willing to argue the much more logical and legally defensible approach presented in Judge Young’s decision illustrates how little real deliberation or debate remains at today’s BIA. Basically, a deliberative tribunal that no longer dares or cares to publicly deliberate in setting precedents and that decides the vast majority of non-precedent cases as “panels of one.”
As Jeffrey points out, the BIA and ICE appear to be on self-created course for a potential “Pereira II.” That, in turn, could result in hundreds of thousands of cases being subject to remand or reopening for termination. On the other hand, if ICE just reserved the NTA now, as suggested at the end of Judge Young’s opinion, the whole problem could largely be avoided. Go figure!
Yet another example of how the backlog is unlikely to diminish as long as the Immigration Courts remain in DOJ, and particularly with Jeff Sessions as the AG.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Greetings. As of July 31, 2018, pending cases in Immigration Court nationwide reached nearly three-quarters of a million (746,049 cases). This is a 38 percent increase compared to the 542,411 cases pending at the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office.
All states are witnessing an increase in Immigration Court backlogs. However, ten states account for the vast majority of the backlog. Four out of five pending cases in the country are before immigration judges in these ten states. The state of Maryland leads the pack with the highest rate of increase in pending cases since the beginning of FY 2017. Pending caseloads in Maryland have increased by 96 percent, roughly double its caseload at the beginning of FY 2017. Of the top ten states, courts based in Texas experienced the least amount of growth at 20 percent. See Figure 1.
In absolute terms, California has the largest Immigration Court backlog – 140,676 cases waiting decision, a number that has increased by 48 percent from its FY 2017 pending caseload level.
Courts based in three other states experienced even higher growth rates than in California. Massachusetts’ court backlog grew by 76 percent. The backlog in Georgia grew by 67 percent, while pending cases in Florida grew by 57 percent.
To view further details on each of the top ten states go to:
In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through July 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
***************************************
As many of us had predicted, by twisting the law against asylum seekers, rather than letting it develop in a manner that would have correctly resulted in more asylum grants in shorter hearings, Sessions has contributed mightily to the increasing backlog. Also, in his conflicted role as the “de facto head of DHS,” Sessions has all but eliminated prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE. His actions have also put many properly closed cases that should have remained off docket or with USCIS back on the Immigration Courts’ docket while stripping Immigration Judges of the tools necessary to manage their dockets.
Sessions effectively has taken a sinking ship and punched holes below the waterline to make it sink even faster. And, he has proved that without some type of rational, Due Process reforms leading to an independent Article I Immigration Court, there is no way of getting a handle on the Immigration Courts’ problems while complying with the Constitution.
A system that essentially is being abused and run into the ground by the Government party appearing before it in every single case is doomed to failure. The first step to any successful court system is creating a fair, impartial, and efficient process, including a transparent merit selection system for the judges, that can then be replicated and improved over time under the direction of judges with input from all parties. That first step will never be taken as long as Sessions and the DOJ remain in change.
But, no system will be able to eliminate overnight a backlog resulting from more than a decade of political manipulation and mismanagement by the DOJ under Administrations of both parties. Even though anti-Constitutionalists like Sessions, Trump, and co. want to admit it, the Supreme Court has told us the simple truth that Due Process takes time. There is no “silver bullet” or “one size fits all” formula for achieving it.
The U.S. government expects children as young as 18 months to represent themselves in immigration court. Lawyers in Miami made a coloring book to help kids understand what they’re facing.
The U.S. government expects children, as young as 18 months and unable to speak, to represent themselves in immigration court to fight against their deportation. Lawyers in Miami made a coloring book to help kids understand what they’re facing.Image by Alfredo De Lara
Media coverage of the border crisis has heavily focused on separated parents and children. But migrant children’s nightmares are just beginning once they set foot here, as documented in the video above. Every child that crosses the border without permission has an immigration court case to fight, but there is no right to free counsel in that court.
So children, who sometimes speak only an indigenous language, are going up alone against government lawyers to fight to stay in the United States. If that sounds absurd, that’s because it is. Congress has the power to change this.
After President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy went into effect, we at Americans for Immigrant Justice began to see an increase in young children needing legal representation. We thought: How do we get toddlers to understand the gravity of their situation?
We created a coloring book to explain to these children their rights. It explains concepts such as what a country is, who is an immigrant and what a judge does. We read the book to separated and unaccompanied children as part of our “know your rights” presentations and have them act out scenarios from the story.
The kids in this video op-ed are the lucky ones. They were released from a children’s shelter run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to family members in Miami. We are representing them in court free. But for many children we engage with at the shelters, the coloring book is the only legal advice they receive.
The stakes are high: Over half of all children in immigration court are unrepresented. Nine out of 10 of them will be ordered deported. If we as a country are truly invested in protecting children, the bare minimum that we can do is ensure access to a lawyer for immigrant children who cannot afford one.
Jennifer Anzardo Valdes is the director of the Children’s Legal Program at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a nonprofit law firm based in Miami.
*******************************************
Click the above link and watch the video by Leah Varjacques.
Under Jeff Sessions, intentional child abuse has become a norm and the operation of the Immigration Courts with little or no regard for Due Process, common sense, and human decency is a national disgrace. When will it end? How many will suffer needlessly and be abused to feed Sessions’s White Nationalist myth? Where is justice?
Join the New Due Process Army and fight to hold Jeff Sessions accountable for all of his illegal and immoral actions!
Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link for all of the links necessary to get the abstract as well as the full article. Among the many current and former Immigration Judges quoted or cited in the article are Jeffrey Chase, Ashley Tabaddor, Dana Marks, Lory Rosenberg, Robert Vinikoor, and me. (I’m sure I’m missing some of our other colleagues; it’s a very long article, but well worth the read.)
In an article full of memorable passages, here is one of my favorites:
Full enforcement of the law requires full enforcement of provisions that grant protection as well as provisions that restrict border entry. This is the part of “enforcement” that the Department of Justice is not equipped to fully understand. The agency’s fundamental commitment to controlling unauthorized immigration does not allow it a neutral, open position on asylum questions. The foundational separation and balance of powers concerns at the heart of Chevron require courts to recognize that inherent conflict of interest as a reason Congress is unlikely to have delegated unchecked power on refugee protection to the prosecuting agency. In our constitutional structure, the courts stand as an essential check on the executive power to deport and must provide robust review to fully enforce the congressional mandate to protect refugees. If the courts abdicate this vital function, they will be abdicating their distinctive role in ensuring the full enforcement of all of our immigration law—including those provisions that seek to ensure compliance with our international obligations to protect individuals facing the danger of persecution.
This is a point that my friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg made often during our tenure together on the BIA. All too often, her pleas fell on deaf ears.
The now abandoned pre-2001 “vision statement” of EOIR was “to be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Nothing in there about “partnering” with DHS to remove more individuals, fulfilling quotas, “sending messages to stay home,” securing the border, jacking up volume, deterring migration, or advancing other politically motivated enforcement goals. Indeed, the proper role of EOIR is to insure fair and impartial adjudication and Due Process for individuals even in the face of constant pressures to “just go along to get along” with a particular Administration’s desires to favor the expedient over the just.
Under all Administrations, the duty to insure Due Process, fairness, full protections, and the granting to benefits to migrants under the law is somewhat shortchanged at EOIR in relation to the pressure to promote Executive enforcement objectives. But, the situation under the xenophobic, disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Immigration Enforcement Czar” Jeff Sessions is a true national disgrace and a blot on our entire legal system. If Congress won’t do its job by removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ forthwith, the Article III courts must step in, as Maureen suggests.
Associate professor at Morgan State University and politics editor for the Root
August 15
Omarosa Manigault Newman — who once declared that “every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump” — evolved from mentee to frenemy to antagonist before her nonstop media blitz promoting her new post-White House tell-all, during which she’s touted the existence of a recording of Trump using the n-word. It’s all sent the White House scrambling, with the president tweetingMonday that “I don’t have that word in my vocabulary, and never have.” Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Tuesday she “can’t guarantee” Americans will never hear audio of Trump using the slur.
It doesn’t matter.
Trump is a racist. That doesn’t hinge on whether he uttered one particular epithet, no matter how ugly it is. It’s about the totality of his presidency, and after 18 months you can see his racial animus throughout his policy initiatives whether you hear it on tape or not.
ADVERTISING
Over the course of his career, well before he took office, Trump’s antipathy toward people of color has been plainly evident. In the ’70s, his real estate company was the subject of a federal investigation that found his employees had secretly marked the paperwork of minority apartment rental applicants with codes such as “C” for “colored.” After black and Latino teenagers were charged with sexually assaulting a white woman in Central Park, he took out full-page ads in New York City newspapers calling for the return of the death penalty. He never backtracked or apologized when the teenagers’ convictions were overturned. He championed birtherism, and wouldn’t disavow the conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya until the end of his 2016 presidential campaign. As president, he’s targeted African American athletes for criticism, whether it’s ranting, “Get that son of a bitch off the field,” in reference to professional football players silently protesting police brutality or tweeting that:
Calling African American Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) a “low IQ person” is now a routine bit at his political rallies. He was quoted referring to Haiti, El Salvador and various African nations as “shithole” countries. He announced his campaign in 2015 by referring to Mexican immigrants as “rapists.” Later that year, he called for the United States to implement a “total and complete” Muslim ban.
After taking office, he hired xenophobes such as Stephen Miller — an architect of the ban, whose hostility toward immigrants is so stark, and hypocritical, that his uncle excoriated him this week in an essay for Politico Magazine, writing of Miller and Trump that “they repeat the insults and false accusations of earlier generations against these refugees to make them seem less than human.”
I could go on. The point is that Trump’s view of nonwhites is out in the open. As Slate’s Christina Cauterucci notes, there’s every reason “to believe that an n-word tape wouldn’t torpedo Trump’s presidency”; there’s no indication his supporters “will turn against him because he used a racial slur.” Trump’s words and deeds over time have demonstrated his racism — it doesn’t hinge on being outed, Paula Deen-style, by a tape of him using the word. Racism hardly ever does.
I’m not saying it would be okay for Trump to use any variation of the n-word — in jest, in anger, singing along to the lyrics of a song, with or without the hard “R.” But the feverish speculation about whether he ever deployed the term wrongly implies that a verdict on his racist character turns on its use. What matters more about Trump are the positions he’s taken and the policy choices he’s made that harm communities of color. In his first year as president, Trump evolved from mere interpersonal racist to racist enabler when he proclaimed there were “very fine people, on both sides” when white supremacists and anti-racist protesters converged in Charlottesville last year. Jeff Sessions, a senator from Alabama who, three decades ago, was denieda federal judgeship by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee over concerns that he was a racist, was installed by Trump as attorney general.
Since assuming that role, Sessions has worked to undermine consent decrees meant to restrain racially abusive police departments and explicitly articulated the administration’s intent to use family separation to deter immigration. The Department of Education, under Secretary Betsy DeVos, is dismissing hundreds of civil rights complaints, supposedly in the name of efficiency. Trump hired Manigault Newman as a liaison to black constituent groups based on their reality TV relationship and, according to him, her willingness to say “GREAT things” about him, despite almost universal criticism of her appointment and subsequent work by African American Republicans and Democrats.
Being a racist — which entails belief in a fixed racial hierarchy and the power to act upon that belief in commerce, government or social spaces — is not now, and never has been, about one word or one slip of the tongue. It is about the ability of those in power to use public and private resources to enforce a racial hierarchy, whether that means having black people arrested for sitting in Starbucks, refusing to hire or promote qualified black job applicants or staffing a presidential administration with people who tolerate or encourage white nationalists. Trump’s statements and his approach to governance suggest he believes in a set racial hierarchy, and the possible existence of a hyped tape doesn’t change that. So far, and as far as I know, no one’s produced audio of white nationalist participants in last Sunday’s Unite the Right 2 rally in Washington using the n-word. Presumably, by the logic of some Trump defenders, that would mean there’s no proof they’re racist, either.
If American public discourse on race continues to revolve around a game of “gotcha,” with sentiments and smoking guns, divorced from an acknowledgment of how racists use their power, we won’t make any progress, during this administration or any other.
*******************************************
Johnson states a simple truth that some don’t want to acknowledge. But, racist anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee, anti-Mexican American, xenophobic “dog whistles” were at the heart of Trump’s campaign and remain at the heart of his policies, particularly on immigration, refugees, and law enforcement.
Does that mean that the majority of Americans who don’t endorse racism don’t need to deal with the fact that Trump is President and that Sessions and Miller are exercising outsized control over our justice system? Or that today’s Trumpist GOP isn’t your grandparents’ GOP (in my case, my parents’ GOP) and, although they might occasionally mutter a few insincere “tisk, tisk’s,” are firmly committed to enabling Trump and his racist policies including, of course, voter disenfranchisement. Of course not. Just think of how African-Americans, Hispanics, and liberals had to deal in practical terms with Southern political power in the age of Jim Crow (which is basically the “Age of Jeff Sessions”).
But, it is essential for us to know and acknowledge who and what we are dealing with and not to let political expediency totally obscure the harsh truth. Trump is a racist. And, that sad but true fact will continue to influence all of his policies for as long as he remains in office. Indeed, “Exhibit 1,” is the failure of the GOP to achieve “no-brainer” Dreamer protection over the last two years and the stubborn insistence of Sessions and others in the GOP to keep tying up our courts with bogus attempts to terminate already limited protections for those who aren’t going anywhere in the first place.
The Atlantic: The early trump era has witnessed wave after wave of seismic policy making related to immigration—the Muslim ban initially undertaken in his very first week in office, the rescission of DACA, the separation of families at the border. Amid the frantic attention these shifts have generated, it’s easy to lose track of the smaller changes that have been taking place. But with them, the administration has devised a scheme intended to unnerve undocumented immigrants by creating an overall tone of inhospitality and menace.
TRAC: The push to prioritize prosecuting illegal border crossers has begun to impact the capacity of federal prosecutors to enforce other federal laws. In March 2018, immigration prosecutions dominated so that in the five federal districts along the southwest border only one in seven prosecutions (14%) were for any non-immigration crimes.
HuffPo: The National Association of Immigration Judges alleges that Trump administration officials transferred the case of an undocumented immigrant away from a Philadelphia-based immigration judge because the judge didn’t give them the outcome they wanted: a swift order of deportation when the immigrant didn’t show up in court for a hastily scheduled hearing.
Vanity Fair: For the past year, Miller has been quietly gutting the U.S. refugee program, slashing the number of people allowed into the country to the lowest level in decades. “His name hasn’t been on anything,” says a former U.S. official who worked on refugee issues. “He is working behind the scenes, he has planted all of his people in all of these positions, he is on the phone with them all of the time, and he is creating a side operation that will circumvent the normal, transparent policy process.” And he is succeeding.
Daily Show: Despite the Trump administration’s campaign promise to focus on illegal immigration, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller is crafting a plan to limit legal immigrants’ access to citizenship and green cards, especially for those who have used public assistance.
NPR: The wait time for migrants seeking asylum at legal ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border has recently increased from hours to weeks, causing some families to camp out for days. We go to the border to meet some of the people waiting there and explain the asylum process in the United States.
The Hill: The Becerras legally adopted Angela through Peruvian court, and sought to bring her back to the U.S. after the adoption was finalized in 2017…The tourist visa that Angela was eventually granted is set to expire at the end of this month, but her immigration case was denied without explanation, according to the couple.
TX Observer: On July 18, a cargo van transporting eight Central American mothers separated from their children under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy crashed into a pickup truck in San Marcos. An ICE contractor was taking the women from a detention center near Austin to the South Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall to be reunited with their kids. Even though police said the van was too damaged to continue driving and the women reported injuries, ICE repeatedly denied the crash ever took place.
NBC: The surge has been caused by a new ICE tactic of arresting — without warrants — people who are driving or walking down the street and using large-scale “sweeps” of likely immigrants, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in June by immigration rights advocates in Chicago.
NPR: In the last 18 years, more than 2,800 migrant bodies have been found along the Arizona border with Mexico. About 1,000 of the bodies are unidentified. We speak with a woman trying to identify them.
Brooklyn DA: The District Attorney identified the defendant as Vadim Alekseev, 42, of Coney Island, Brooklyn. He was arraigned today before Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun on a 21-count indictment in which he is charged with first-degree scheme to defraud, first-degree immigrant assistance services fraud, fourth-degree grand larceny, tampering with physical evidence and practicing or appearing as attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered. He was ordered held on $15,000 bail and to return to court on October 3, 2018. The defendant faces up to four years in prison if convicted on the top count.
A federal judge ordered a woman and her daughter to be returned to the U.S. and threatened to hold AG Jeff Sessions in contempt after learning that they were in the process of being removed while a court hearing appealing their deportations was underway. (Grace, et al., v. Sessions, 8/9/18) AILA Doc. No. 18081004
Politico: A woman whose son was killed on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona can sue for damages, a federal court ruled Tuesday. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz is not entitled to qualified immunity, saying that the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — applies in this case.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement in response to the court order in the D.C. District Court, ordering the restoration of the DACA program, stating, “The Department of Justice will take every lawful measure to vindicate the Department of Homeland Security’s lawful rescission of DACA.” AILA Doc. No. 18080635
A District Court judge certified a class of current and former civil immigration detainees who performed work for The Geo Group, Inc. at its Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA and were paid a $1 daily rate. (Nwauzor et al. v. The GEO Group Inc., 8/6/18) AILA Doc. No. 18080770
Following summary judgment briefing by both parties, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on July 26, 2018. The court ordered USCIS to follow the law and timely adjudicate initial EAD asylum applications. (Gonzalez Rosario v. USCIS, 7/26/18) AILA Doc. No. 15052630
In a lawsuit filed on behalf of minor migrant children who were forcible separated from their parents and have been, or will be, reunified with them pursuant to Ms. L. v. ICE, the judge transferred three claims to be considered by the judge in the Ms. L. v. ICElawsuit. AILA Doc. No. 18080730
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore the DACA program but delayed the order until 8/23/18 to allow the government to respond and appeal. (NAACP v. Trump, 8/3/18) AILA Doc. No. 17091933
BIA reaffirmed its prior decision denying the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal and dismissed his appeal, finding that exhibiting or sponsoring an animal in an animal fighting venture is a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18080637
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding that respondent was present without being admitted or paroled in light of his credible testimony that he last entered the country with a border crossing card. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of I-M-G-, 7/28/17) AILA Doc. No. 18080731
BIA found that the IJ properly determined that the respondent is ineligible for cancellation of removal following his violation of a protection order, because he has been convicted of an offense under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii). Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18080736
Unpublished BIA decision holds that larceny from a person under Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1701 is not an aggravated felony theft offense because it encompasses takings that were fraudulently obtained with the consent of the owner. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Lopez-Hernandez, 7/14/17) AILA Doc. No. 18080937
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order against respondent who arrived at 10:45 am for a 9:00 am hearing after his vehicle experienced a mechanical failure, finding that he did not fail to appear for his hearing. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Rivas-Diaz, 7/18/17) AILA Doc. No. 18081044
Unpublished BIA decision holds that grand larceny from the person under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-95 is not a particularly serious crime on its face, making it unnecessary to examine the underlying circumstances of the offense. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of J-J-V-, 7/18/17) AILA Doc. No. 18081300
Unpublished BIA decision holds that respondent was not subject to the aggravated felony bar in INA 212(h) because his reentry following a trip abroad did not qualify as an “admission” as an LPR. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Reza, 7/18/16) AILA Doc. No. 18081303
ICE provides background information into the document and benefit fraud task forces, including the 28 locations around the United States. HSI has partnered with federal, state, and local counterparts to create these task forces. AILA Doc. No. 18080802
A 6/22/18 letter from DOS to Senator Van Hollen on the impact of Presidential Proclamation 9645 (Travel Ban 3.0) on the processing of U.S. visas. Letter includes information about the number of applicants from impacted countries who have applied for visas and those who have been cleared for waivers. AILA Doc. No. 18080900
The GAO reviewed DHS’s efforts to deploy barriers along the southwest border, and issued a report finding that CBP is evaluating designs and locations for border barriers but is proceeding without key information, such as an analysis of the costs based on location or segment, which can vary widely. AILA Doc. No. 18080903
Check out Elizabeth’s first item, Franklin Foer’s outstanding article in The Atlantic on how Trump, Sessions, & Miller have turned ICE into a modern “Mini-Gestapo” deporting individuals who actually are contributing mightily to the United States and its economy while sowing terror in the ethnic communities. Sure sounds familiar to those of us who recently toured the Holocaust Museum.
That’s why 19 of the real “pros’ at ICE, the agents of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), petitioned recently to escape from the toxic unproductive atmosphere of ICE and distance themselves from the tarnished “ICE brand” which actually greatly diminishes real law enforcement efforts.
Foer makes a compelling case for abolishing ICE and reconstituting its real law enforcement functions into a new agency with more professional and unbiased leadership. Not going to happen now. But, eventually there will be “regime change” in America (or America as we know it will cease to exist). When that happens, a meltdown of the current ICE and recasting it should be a top priority for Congress and the Executive.
Until then, the “New Due Process Army”(of which Elizabeth Gibson is a charter member) will be fighting ICE’s overkill (and, I might add, gross waste of taxpayer funds on counterproductive “enforcement”) every step of the way!
Under Trump, the rare act of denaturalizing U.S. citizens on the rise
New citizens during a naturalization ceremony at the L.A. Convention Center. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
Working a Saturday shift in the stuffy Immigration and Naturalization Service office in downtown Los Angeles in the 1970s, Carl Shusterman came across a rap sheet.
A man recently sworn in as a United States citizen had failed to disclose on his naturalization application that he had been arrested, but not convicted, in California on rape and theft charges.
Shusterman, then a naturalization attorney, embarked on a months-long effort to do something that rarely happened: strip someone of their American citizenship.
“We had to look it up to find out how to do this,” he said. “We’d never even heard of it.”
Forty years later, denaturalization — a complex process once primarily reserved for Nazi war criminals and human rights violators — is on the rise under the Trump administration.
A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services team in Los Angeles has been reviewing more than 2,500 naturalization files for possible denaturalization, focusing on identity fraud and willful misrepresentation. More than 100 cases have been referred to the Department of Justice for possible action.
“We’re receiving cases where [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] believes there is fraud, where our systems have identified that individuals used more than one identity, sometimes more than two or three identities,” said Dan Renaud, the associate director for field operations at the citizenship agency. “Those are the cases we’re pursuing.”
The move comes at a time when Trump and top advisors have made it clear that they want to dramatically reduce immigration, both illegal and legal.
The administration granted fewer visas and accepted fewer refugees in 2017 than in previous years.
Recently, the federal government moved to block victims of gang violence and domestic abuse from claiming asylum. White House senior advisor Stephen Miller — an immigration hawk — is pushing a policy that could make it more difficult for those who have received public benefits, including Obamacare, to become citizens or green card holders, according to multiple news outlets.
Shusterman, now a private immigration attorney in L.A., said he’s concerned denaturalization could be used as another tool to achieve the president’s goals.
“I think they’ll … find people with very minor transgressions,” he said, “and they’ll take away their citizenship.”
Dozens of U.S. mayors, including L.A.’s Eric Garcetti, signed a letter sent to the citizenship agency’s director in late July, criticizing a backlog in naturalization applications and the agency’s commitment of resources to “stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans.”
“The new measure to investigate thousands of cases from almost 30 years ago, under the pretext of the incredibly minimal problem of fraud in citizenship applications, instead of managing resources in a manner that processes the backlogs before them, suggests that the agency is more interested in following an aggressive political agenda rather than its own mission,” the letter stated.
Attorney Carl Shusterman in his Los Angeles office. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)
But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls, said “denaturalization, like deportation, is an essential tool to use against those who break the rules.”
“It’s for people who are fraudsters, liars,” he said. “We’ve been lax about this for a long time, and this unit that’s been developed is really just a question of taking the law seriously.”
From 2009 to 2016, an average of 16 civil denaturalization cases were filed each year, Department of Justice data show. Last year, more than 25 cases were filed. Through mid-July of this year, the Justice Department has filed 20 more.
Separately, ICE has a pending budget request for $207.6 million to hire 300 agents to help root out citizenship fraud, as well as to “complement work site enforcement, visa overstay investigations, forensic document examination, outreach programs and other activities,” according to the agency.
The stage for increasing cases of denaturalization was set during the waning days of the Obama administration.
In September 2016, a report released by the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security showed that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who either had criminal convictions or deportation orders against them had not been uploaded into a database used to check identities.
It turned out that because of incomplete fingerprint records, citizenship had been granted to at least 858 people who had been ordered deported or removed under another identity. USCIS began looking into cases.
John Sandweg, who headed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Obama, said that when it came to denaturalization, officers considered it on a case-by-case basis, “looking at the seriousness of the offense and then deciding if it made sense to dedicate the resources.”
“It was looked at more in that context — let’s look for serious felons who may have duped the system because we didn’t digitize fingerprints yet. Not so much … let’s just find people where there’s eligibilities to denaturalize because we want to try to reduce the ranks of naturalized U.S. citizens.”
Even during the communist scare of McCarthy era, citizenship revocation was so rare that often the cases made the news.
“The constant surveillance of communists in this country is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week, 52-weeks-a-year job,” President Eisenhower declared in 1954, according to a Los Angeles Times article headlined: “Eisenhower cites U.S. war on reds.”
The government in 1981 took citizenship away from Feodor Fedorenko, who had worked as a guard at a Poland death camp, fled to the U.S. and illegally obtained citizenship by omitting references to his Nazi service. After he was denaturalized, he was deported to the Soviet Union and executed as a war criminal.
“It’s always taken expertise and finesse to bring those cases to court and successfully finish,” said Bruce J. Einhorn, former litigation chief for Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations. “I think an office like this, in theory, could do a great deal of good, depending also on their exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
Citizenship and Immigration Services began training officers last year on how to review cases and on the burden of proof necessary to revoke a person’s citizenship. About a dozen people are in the L.A. unit — a number expected to rise to about 85 with the addition of support, analyst and administrative staff.
The case of Baljinder Singh, of India, is among those the agency referred to Justice officials.
Nearly three decades ago, Singh arrived in San Francisco from India without any travel documents or proof of identity, claiming his name was Davinder Singh. He was placed in exclusion proceedings but failed to show up for an immigration court hearing and was ordered deported.
He later filed an asylum application under his true name but withdrew it after he married a U.S. citizen who filed a visa petition on his behalf, according to the Justice Department. He became a citizen on July 28, 2006.
In January, a federal district judge revoked Singh’s citizenship.
“I think that if individuals saw these cases and really took time to understand the length to which some of these individuals went to fraudulently obtain immigration status, they too would want us to pursue these cases,” Renaud said.
Einhorn said that what many view as the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda makes it hard to see denaturalization and the citizenship agency’s role in it in a neutral way.
“The immigration law and the civil rights community are understandably going to be very suspicious of an office like this in the age of Trump,” he said. “The question will be: Is this office simply trying to apply the law in a bad way or in an unsound way just to effectuate the extremist views of the president? Or is it in fact going to be a professional group of people who are going after serious offenders of the naturalization law?”
****************************
I’ll admit to being a skeptic on this one. Since 1908, the policy of the USDOJ has been not to revoke citizenship based on fraud or illegality unless “substantial results are to be achieved thereby in the way of betterment of the citizenship of the country.” Indeed that venerable legal policy statement is one of the earliest rebuttals to Jeff Sessions’s bogus claimed — never back up by any cogent legal reasoning — that programs of “de-prioritizing” certain types of cases, like DACA, are “illegal.”
Until now, that sensible and prudent policy of erring on the side of the naturalized citizen in denaturalization has served the country well. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this Administration is capable of discerning the “betterment of the citizenship” in any non-racially-discriminatory manner. Their disingenuous approach to prosecutorial discretion generally leads me to believe that this initiative also will be abused. To me, it looks like just another step in turning USCIS from the service agency it was supposed to be into another branch of ICE.
It’s been six weeks since a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fix the crisis it created when it separated more than 2,500 children from their parents under a heartless policy designed to deter desperate families from entering the United States illegally. But the job of reunification still isn’t done, in part because the government failed to devise a system to track the separated families.
Some 400 parents reportedly have already been deported without their children, and the government apparently has no idea how to reach them. It’s a colossal snafu that is as appalling as it is inexplicable. Among the many inhumane immigration enforcement policies adopted in the first two years of the Trump reign, history may well regard this bit of idiocy as the worst.
Or perhaps not; the competition hasn’t closed yet. In fact, the Pentagon is working on plans, at Trump’s direction, to house 20,000 detained immigrants — including children this time — in secured areas of military bases while they await deportation proceedings. Yes, the Obama administration did something similar when it tried to deal with the inflow of unaccompanied minors from Central America. It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now; kids don’t belong in prisons on military bases. Under a court order, the government cannot hold minors for more than 20 days before releasing them to the custody of their parents, other relatives or vetted guardians.
When it comes to immigration, there has been such a flood of bad policies and ham-handed enforcement acts since Trump took office that it can be hard to keep it all straight.
First there was the ban on travel of people from mostly Muslim countries and then the effort to eliminate protections for so-called Dreamers who have been living in the country illegally since arriving as children. Hard-line Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions has inserted himself in the immigration court system and overridden previous decisions over who qualifies for asylum; not surprisingly, the number of people granted protection has dropped as a result. President Trump also has throttled the flow of refugees resettled here; last year, for the first time since the passage of the 1980 U.S. Refugee Act, the United States resettled fewer refugees than the rest of the world, a significant step away from what had been an area of global leadership. (Over the last 40 years, the U.S. has been responsible for 75% of the world’s permanently resettled refugees.)
Then there’s this: The White House is reportedly drafting a plan that would allow immigration officials to deny citizenship, green cards and residency visas to immigrants if they or family members have used certain government programs, such as food stamps, the earned income tax credit or Obamacare.
And this: The now largely abandoned“zero tolerance” policy of filing misdemeanor criminal charges against people crossing the border illegally led to a surge of cases in federal court districts along the Southwest border as non-immigration criminal prosecutions plummeted, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In fact, non-immigration prosecutions fell from 1,093 (1 in 7 prosecutions) in March to 703 (1 in 17 prosecutions) in June, suggesting that serious crimes are taking a back seat to misdemeanor border crossing.
Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report this week questions how U.S. Customs and Border Patrol set priorities in planning where to build Trump’s border wall, and said the agency failed to account for wide variations in terrain in estimating the cost — which means that extending the existing border walls and fences another 722 miles could cost more than the administration’s $18-billion estimate. And while the president crows that the wall will secure the border, it won’t, experts say. People will still find a way around, over or under it. And most drug smuggling already comes hidden in motor vehicles passing through monitored ports of entry. At best, Trump’s wall — if Congress is insane enough to approve funding — would be little more than a symbol of his arrogance, and of this country’s determination to seal itself off from the world.
Trump’s immigration policy has been characterized by unnecessary detention and inadequate monitoring that has allowed for abuses at detention centers — including sexual assaults and forced medication of children. The immigration court system is now overwhelmed by a backlog of 733,000 cases.
In short, it’s been a disaster. And through all of these fiascoes, there have been zero serious efforts in Congress or by the president for comprehensive reform of a system everyone acknowledges is broken.
*******************************
Regime change is the only answer, beginning this November and continuing until Trump and his toxically incompetent White Nationalist Cabal are removed from office!
America is a great country that could reach its full potential and regain both economic and moral leadership among the world’s nations. But, it’s never going to happen while the majority of us are being governed by short-sighted, incompetent White Nationalists bent on letting their racist agenda destroy our country. Oh, and they are corrupt grifters too, never a good sign in leadership!
The union for the nation’s immigration judges is fighting a government decision to strip a Philadelphia judge of his authority over 87 cases, arguing that the move sidelines judicial independence as President Trump seeks to ramp up deportations.
Immigration judges work under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, though they have independent authority to determine whether the thousands of undocumented immigrants who come before them every year can remain in the United States through asylum or some other form of relief.
In a labor grievance filed this week, the National Association of Immigration Judges says the office undercut that authority when it removed Judge Steven A. Morley from overseeing juvenile cases that he had either continued or placed on temporary hold amid questions over whether federal prosecutors had adequately notified the subjects to appear in court.
The Justice Department said in a statement Thursday that “there is reason to believe” Morley violated federal law and department policy in those cases, but it did not offer any specifics. The statement said an investigation is ongoing.
Trump alarmed immigration judges in June by tweeting that anyone caught at the border, presumably including those seeking asylum, should be deported without a trial.
“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” the president wrote.
In its grievance, the judges’ union focused on a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who arrived in 2014 as a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor.
Castro-Tum’s current whereabouts are unknown, and he had not responded to recent court summonses. Morley temporarily closed his case in 2016, ordering the Justice Department to ensure that Castro-Tum was receiving the notices. He did the same with other similar cases.
Prosecutors appealed Morley’s decision, and the case eventually came to the attention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who chose to review it in January.
Sessions concluded that Morley was wrong to close Castro-Tum’s case and ordered it resolved within two weeks.
Amiena Khan, a New York-based immigration judge who is the union’s vice president, said the intervention further raised suspicions that the administration is looking to circumvent the judicial process and move to deport people faster amid a backlog of some 600,000 cases.
“This is another transparent way, surprisingly transparent in this instance, for the agency to come in and re-create the ideology of this whole process more towards a law enforcement ideology,” Khan said.
The system “is based on our ability to look at the facts and adjudicate the claim before us to our best ability and then render a decision,” Khan said. “Not being told by someone else how to rule.”
The union, which represents 350 judges, argues that Morely should get his caseload back. It is asking the Justice Department to assure all immigration judges that their independent authority won’t be undermined.
Immigrant advocates say the dispute highlights a fundamental flaw in immigration courts, where the judges work under the same department that is tasked with prosecuting cases. Several legal groups have renewed a push for federal legislation to overhaul the system so judges can operate more independently, either through a different branch of the Justice Department or as a separate tribunal court.
“We’re very concerned the immigration judges are simply being turned into law enforcement officers,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which launched a national campaign this month to lobby members of Congress to support such legislation.
************************************
When he isn’t busy praising hate groups, covering for police violence against the African-American community, disenfranchising minority voters, promoting the establishment of religion, using bogus stats to fabricate a connection between immigrants and violent crime, abusing brown-skinned children, forcing transgender kids to pee in their pants, thumbing his nose at Federal Judges and their orders, briefing his attorneys on how to mislead courts, mounting unconstitutional attacks on cities, ignoring environmental laws, dissing Dreamers, shilling for racist legislation, deconstructing our refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems, filling court dockets with minor misdemeanants to the exclusion of felons, imposing deportation quotas, shafting brown-skinned refugee victims of domestic violence, huddling with fellow neo-Nazi Stephen Miller, blocking migrants from getting abortions, or hiding under his desk from Trump, one of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s favorite pastimes is interfering with the independence of U.S. Immigration Judges while purposely jacking up the backlog in the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It remains to be seen whether our country can survive this one-man Constitutional wrecking crew and his reign of indecency and intellectual dishonesty.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61379839/1030619212.jpg.0.jpg)
