"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
When he landed in Michigan in late May, all the weary little boy carried was a trash bag stuffed with dirty clothes from his dayslong trek across Mexico, and two small pieces of paper — one a stick-figure drawing of his family from Honduras, the other a sketch of his father, who had been arrested and led away after they arrived at the United States border in El Paso.
An American government escort handed over the 5-year-old child, identified on his travel documents as José, to the American woman whose family was entrusted with caring for him. He refused to take her hand. He did not cry. He was silent on the ride “home.”
The first few nights, he cried himself to sleep. Then it turned into “just moaning and moaning,” said Janice, his foster mother. He recently slept through the night for the first time, though he still insists on tucking the family pictures under his pillow.
José’s separation from his father is part of the Trump administration’s latest and most widely debated border enforcement policy. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, a directive that is already leading to the breakup of hundreds of migrant families and channeling children into shelters and foster homes across the country.
The goal, according to administration officials, is to discourage Central American families from making the perilous journey to the United States’ southwest border, where they have been arriving in swelling numbers this year to claim asylum.
In just the first two weeks under President Trump’s new policy, 638 parents who arrived with 658 children had been prosecuted, administration officials told Congress.
Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, emphasized that separating families was not the aim but merely the effect of a decision to step up prosecutions of those who cross the border illegally. “We do not have a policy to separate children from their parents. Our policy is, if you break the law we will prosecute you,” she told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 15.
She said the Trump administration is doing a better job than its predecessors in assuring that migrant children are placed with sponsors who are carefully screened. “We can make sure that the children go to people who are actually family members and who are not traffickers and who won’t abuse them,” she said.
Whether the policy will succeed as a deterrent remains an open question. What is clear is that it is creating heartbreak and trauma for those subjected to it, with parents and children often unaware of one another’s whereabouts.
. . . .
In several letters to the Department of Homeland Security, the American Academy of Pediatrics has urged an end to parent-child separation, which researchers have said can cause lifelong trauma in children. When the policy was unveiled, the academy’s president, Dr. Colleen Kraft, said she was dismayed at its “sweeping cruelty.”
José’s last name and that of his foster family, as well as where they live, are not being published in order to protect their privacy.
Since his arrival in Michigan, family members said, a day has not gone by when the boy has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”
They tell him the truth. They do not know. No one knows.
José’s father is in detention, and parent and child until this week had not spoken since they were taken into the custody of United States authorities.
Image
Immigrants near McAllen, Tex., in April. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally.CreditLoren Elliott/Reuters
“I am watching history happen before my eyes. It’s horrendous,” said Janice, 53.
Janice, her husband, Chris, and their two teenage daughters have firsthand experience with underage migrants. They are among a number of families who have in recent years provided a temporary home, called transitional foster care, to minors seeking refuge in the United States, usually after fleeing violence and economic uncertainty in Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala.
In the last two years, 12 children, including two sets of siblings, have occupied the room upstairs with its soothing white-and-light-blue walls and twin beds with colorful bedding. All had arrived in the United States alone and remained in the family’s care for a few weeks or months until a long-term sponsor already in the country, often a relative, was identified and cleared by the authorities to receive them.
“They had access to their parents on a daily basis,” Janice said. “They talked to them on the phone. We have done video chats with Mom and Dad and siblings with every placement — except now.”
José is the first child they have hosted who crossed the border with a parent, rather than alone, then was forcibly separated and left with no ability to contact them. On his flight to Michigan were two other Central American boys in similar circumstances who were placed with families in the area.
The majority of youths apprehended at the border over the past several years have been housed in government shelters and most of them are teenagers who came alone, often expecting to join family members already in the United States. About 11,000 children are currently in these facilities, which are at 95 percent capacity, according to Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. The department has reserved an additional 1,218 beds in various places for migrant children, including some at military bases, he said.
On May 10, three days after Mr. Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, the government issued a call for proposals from “shelter care providers, including group homes and transitional foster care” in anticipation of a surge in children separated from their parents who would require housing.
. . . .
“For two days, he didn’t shower, he didn’t change his clothes. I literally had to peel the socks off his feet. They were so old and smelly,” Janice said. “I realized that he didn’t want anyone to take anything away from him.”
Image
A drawing of José’s father. Since the child’s arrival in Michigan, his foster family said, a day has not gone by when he has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”
The one thing that animated him was discussing his “photos,” as he called the family drawings.
He introduced “mi familia,” pointing to the figures of his parents, brother and younger sister. Staring intensely at the sketch of his father, with a slight mustache and a cap, he repeated his name out loud again and again.
It was “just me and him” on the trip from Honduras, he told Janice one night as he lay in bed shuffling the pictures, taking turns looking at one and then the other.
“He holds onto the two pictures for dear life,” Janice said, through tears. “It’s heart-wrenching.”
Janice does not blame José’s parents for putting him through the ordeal.
In early May, she traveled to Central America to see for herself the conditions on the ground, and returned convinced that gang-fueled violence, extortion and recruitment of children were compelling parents to make the arduous journey over land with their children to the United States. “I have nothing but sorrow and compassion for the families,” she said.
When sirens pierced the quiet of the night last week, José’s eyes widened with fear. “La violencia, la violencia,” he said. The family assured him that it was not violence; it was fire trucks.
In recent days, the boy began attending a multi-age kindergarten at Bethany with about a dozen other migrant children.
. . . .
Earlier this week, José spoke with his parents for the first time since their lives had diverged. The phone calls were separate: His father remains in detention, and his mother is in Honduras.
The calls went smoothly, according to the case manager.
But they changed everything. Somehow, it had sunk in that there was no way of knowing when he would see his family. “It triggered all the separation trauma again,” said Janice.
She tried to offer him his toys, but he erupted in anger, screaming and crying at the kitchen table for almost an hour.
“It was really hard to watch. The look on his face was anguish,” said Janice, her voice breaking.
When his fury subsided, the boy collapsed on the kitchen floor, still sobbing. “Mama, Papa,” he said, over and over.
Nearby lay the family pictures, which he had flung on the floor.
Read the entire, totally disturbing and enraging, article at the link.
Is this the way we want to be remembered by our children, grandchildren, and future generations? As nation that put cruel, arrogant, and inhumane individuals in charge of our Government and then stood by and watched while they abused children, spread xenophobia, enriched the rich, mocked ethics, and thumbed their noses at human decency.
Assuming that the “Joses of the world” live to grow up, there will be a horrible price to pay for future generations of Americans as they are forced to come to grips with the grotesque human rights abuses committed in the name of a perverted nationalism. Very much like the reckoning that the Catholic Church has had to undergo for tolerating and covering up decades and generations of sexual, physical, and mental abuse of youth!
Get out the vote to limit the power of the horrible minority that has taken over our Government and our nation and to eventually remove them from office at all levels. America cannot and will not “be great again” until the stain of Trumpism is removed from our national Government!
Sessions, Justice Department take lead as public face of Trump’s immigration policy
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
If there’s one person besides President Donald Trump who’s associated with his immigration policies, it’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Regardless of whether it’s his agency’s core jurisdiction.
Sessions and the Justice Department have taken a lead role in announcing and defending the administration’s immigration efforts on a number of fronts — including some that only tangentially involve the department.
It was the Justice Department press office that put out a “fact check” statement Tuesday responding to Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley’s publicized border trip to visit detention facilities run by components of the Departments of Homeland Security and of Health and Human Services, and it was Sessions who went in front of cameras the day the DHS announced the policy that would result in more families separated at the border.
Even going back to September, it was Sessions who announced on camera the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which was rescinded by the DHS citing legal guidance from the Justice Department. Sessions has made immigration and border security at least a passing reference in most speeches he’s given and has made multiple trips to the border to highlight the issue.
His investment in the issue doesn’t mean other agencies aren’t involved, nor that his shouldn’t be. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has vocally defended the policies in front of Congress and in public appearances. At the time of the DACA decision, the DHS was led by an acting secretary, Elaine Duke, who was not a mouthpiece for the administration’s immigration policies. And Sessions has certainly explored every way his agency could be a player in immigration policy.
But in numerous instances, Sessions has been associated with policies his department would otherwise not have a large role in — and the Justice Department seems to relish taking it on.
Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman said Sessions is “proud” to execute the administration’s agenda “in lockstep” with Nielsen. The DHS declined to comment.
A former Obama administration Justice Department immigration official, however, said the department’s hand in making policy is counter to what has traditionally been its role — serving as the government’s lawyer to defend policies.
“It’s unclear what the purpose is of talking about Sen. Merkley at all at the Justice Department,” said Leon Fresco, who served in the Obama administration and is now in private practice. “I think in many cases that agencies are best served by the Department of Justice being perceived as a neutral arbiter on all policies and the agencies being the ones who drive the policy-making agenda. When those roles are blurred, it becomes much harder for the lawyers who have to go to court to have to argue that they don’t have a vested interest in the policies that are being advocated.”
It’s no surprise to those who have followed Sessions’ career. Even in the Senate, he was an outspoken voice in the immigration debate, largely to the right of most of his Republican colleagues.
“While Jeff Sessions may have wanted to be attorney general, the area and issue he cared about the most was immigration,” said Peter Boogaard, a former Obama administration spokesman for the White House and DHS who is now with the pro-immigration group FWD.us.
“It’s not something when I worked in the Department of Homeland Security that Justice was trying to do. They were focused on big, large-scale counterterrorism efforts, and big large-scale efforts on public safety and national security,” Boogaard continued. “The Department of Justice did not engage in immigration issues in this capacity and it is surprising that DHS has ceded that ground of authority. But this is not a new trend; this is something that has been the case since the beginning of this administration.”
Pretty much says it all. Sessions “hanging tough” following Trump’s criticism on the Mueller investigation has nothing to do with integrity (gimmie a break — he’d be violating clear ethics and, perhaps, criminal rules if he “un-recused” himself — he’d certainly lose his law license) or protecting the (largely fictional) “independence” of the Justice Department. It has everything to do with a mean and nasty guy with a White Nationalist Agenda wanting to take full advantage of the “chance of a lifetime” to inflict maximum, and perhaps lasting, unnecessary pain and suffering on migrants, women, children and other vulnerable individuals who don’t fit within his “White Nationalist universe.”
Sessions’s tenure “proves beyond a reasonable doubt” that the current Immigration Court system is neither fundamentally fair nor independent and it is incapable, in its current form, of delivering and guaranteeing Due Process for migrants. If and when Congress and/or the Article IIIs are going to recognize the obvious and “do the right thing” is a different question — — one where “the jury is still out.”
As the use of immigration detention continues to increase, it is more important than ever that representatives understand the legal framework governing bond proceedings in order to harness that knowledge toward zealous and well-prepared advocacy on behalf of detained respondents. Successful bond representation can make all the difference in whether a respondent is able to secure release and ultimately prevail on the merits of his or her case. Effective representation in bond proceedings also helps to safeguard the due process rights of detained respondents. The authors encourage practitioners to consider pro bono opportunities available in their jurisdiction or remotely, such as through the Immigrant Justice Campaign, which not only help meet a compelling need but can also provide practitioners with experience and mentoring. Given the ever-changing landscape of immigration detention, practitioners are encouraged to remain connected to others doing bond work in order to share information about the latest trends, successful strategies, and best practices. Finally, the authors wish to remind readers that this guide is intended for general educational use only and that practitioners should independently research the law governing their jurisdiction, as this area of law (like many in the immigration field) is complex and frequently changing.
**********************************************
Join the New Due Process Army. Fight for the Due Process rights of everyone in America. Allow yourself to be inspired by and learn from the scholarship, dedication, character, and commitment of amazing attorneys, leaders, and role models like Michelle & Rebecca!
Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! Due Process forever!
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes), it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.
In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).
Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).” Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016. The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2
Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control. The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016). These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3 Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4
UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.” The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5 The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.” According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”
At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:
The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.
Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.” This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….” The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”
Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.” Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.
Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground. The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494). With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7
Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground. See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495. In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.” The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
1. 14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).
2. I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.
3. American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).
4. See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).
The government has offered no substantive legal justification for the Trump administration’s policy of indefinitely separating children from their parents at the border.
On Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein proposed a law that would bar the intentional separation of asylum-seeking parents from their children when they cross the border. “It’s hard to conceive of a policy more horrific than intentionally separating children from their parents as a form of punishment,” the California Democrat said in a statement publicizing the move.
Affidavits from a February lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union show precisely what Feinstein describes. The Congolese asylum-seeker at the center of the case, known as “Ms. L,” described having her 6-year-old daughter taken away by the U.S. government without explanation. “She was taken into another room and then I heard her screaming: Don’t take me away from my mommy!” the woman wrote. In court filings, the government questioned whether Ms. L was in fact her child’s mother. The woman had her child returned only after the suit was filed and the government was made to conduct a DNA test that proved her parentage.
“[T]hese terrible policies call into question whether we are in violation of our own laws and our obligations under international law,” Feinstein said in proposing a law to stop the practice of splitting up families at the border. Feinstein is right: There seems to be no coherent legal justification for separating children from their parents, some of whom—like Ms. L—presented themselves at a port of entry as asylum-seekers and have not been charged with any crimes.
The rationale top Trump administration officials have stated publicly—that such a practice will deter undocumented immigrants from seeking asylum at the border—appears to be so patently unconstitutional that the government’s own lawyers have renounced it in court. If the broad outlines here sound familiar, that’s because the legal fight over the policy is shaping up as a replay of the battle over President Donald Trump’s disastrous first travel ban, which was quickly struck down as a blatant violation of due process rights.
“I did not even have a chance to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in hisseat.”— affidavit of Mirian, whose 18-month-old was taken at the Texas border
A federal judge in San Diego is set to rule any day on the question of whether the government is lawlessly abducting immigrant children at the border. The ACLU is seeking a classwide preliminary injunction to put a stop to the practice. Based on a close reading of legal filings in the case, the public statements of policymakers, and a transcript from a critical hearing last month, it’s difficult to fathom how the judiciary could possibly rule in favor of the government.
In court proceedings last month, Judge Dana Sabraw indicated that the case, Ms. L v. ICE—filed by the ACLU on behalf of Ms. L and other asylum-seeking parents who have had their children taken away—should hinge on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Under a series of Supreme Court precedents, family integrity has long been considered a “fundamental” due process right. Among other rulings, the ACLU’s lawsuit cited the Supreme Court’s opinion in 2000’s Troxel v. Granville, which stated that there is “a fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child.” This precedent mandates both that the government show a compelling government interest in separating a child and parent—preventing child abuse, for instance—and that it is using the least restrictive means to fulfill that interest.
In the ACLU’s case, the government has not shown a lawful basis for its policy of indefinitely separating immigrant children from their parents at the border. In fact, government lawyers have denied the existence of any such policy at all. In response to Sabraw’s question about whether the government “has a practice, or perhaps even a policy, of separation of families as a deterrence mechanism,” Justice Department attorney Sarah B. Fabian asserted, “There is not such a policy.”
This claim directly contradicts the administration’s publicly stated reasoning. When asked by CNN in March 2017 about the possibility of separating children from their parents at the border, then–Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said, “I am considering, in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that.”
Per the New York Times, that policy was put on hold at the time because it was deemed too controversial. But in the last several months, as Trump has reportedly put intense pressure on his Cabinet to reverse an uptick in border crossings by undocumented immigrants, such a policy appears to have been put into place. Last month, the Washington Post reported that a pilot version of a program of separating families had occurred “in the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector, which includes New Mexico, between July and November 2017, and [the administration] said the number of families attempting to cross illegally plunged by 64 percent.” And in a pair of speeches last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions seemed to herald the launch of a formal policy, calling it a “zero-tolerance” immigration measure. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally,” Sessions said. “It’s not our fault that somebody does that.” Kelly, now Trump’s chief of staff, stated again last month in an interview with NPR that the purpose of “family separation” is deterrence. “The name of the game to a large degree … a big name of the game is deterrence,” he said.
The current secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, did not provide a direct answer when asked by NPR if “family separation at the border … [was] meant to act as a deterrent,” explaining that it’s very common for adults to get separated from their children when they commit crimes. In testimony before Congress in April, Nielsen said, “When we separate, we separate because the law tells us to, and that is in the interest of the child.”
In a memorandum that outlines the proposal and was obtained by The Washington Post, officials say that threatening adults with criminal charges and prison time would be the “most effective” way to reverse the steadily rising number of attempted crossings. Most parents now caught crossing the border illegally with their children are quickly released to await civil deportation hearings.
“Such a policy would mean separating parents and children, because the parents would be placed in criminal detention, where children cannot be held,” the Post noted.
In a statement provided to the Post, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman said, “DHS does not have a policy of separating families at the border for deterrence purposes.” Waldman did justify the splitting of families, though, by claiming it was necessary to combat child smuggling as well as to “protect” children from their own “nefarious” border-crossing parents. “DHS does … have a legal obligation to protect the best interests of the child whether that be from human smugglings, drug traffickers, or nefarious actors who knowingly break our immigration laws and put minor children at risk,” she said.
While the government denies the existence of a concrete policy, the numbers tell a different story. “Customs and Border Protection informed me that 658 children were taken from 638 parents during a 14-day period in May,” Feinstein reported on Thursday. This is a huge uptick from the six-month period between October and April, when the New York Times reported that “more than 700 children”—roughly 120 per month, as compared to 658 in 14 days—were reportedly separated “from adults claiming to be their parents.”
Let’s imagine that, based on all this evidence, Judge Sabraw—who was appointed by George W. Bush—determines there is in fact a new government policy of separating children and parents at the border. The court would then need to examine the government’s stated rationale for enacting such a rule. For the policy to pass constitutional muster, the government needs some legal justification for the indefinite separation of parents from children, even when the parents and children are undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court held in 2000’s Zadvydas v. Davis that due process rights apply to undocumented immigrants. This holding suggests the government may not separate asylum-seekers from their children indefinitely and without cause. During last month’s arguments, it sounded like the judge believed the policy justification stated by Kelly—deterrence of illegal immigration—was clearly unconstitutional. “A policy of deterring families from entering the United States by separating them … would [that not be] a clear substantive due process violation?” Judge Sabraw asked of Fabian, the government attorney.
“If it was done without any otherwise authority to cause the separation, I think, we might be closer to that problem,” she acknowledged, claiming the government does have such authority stemming from the Immigration and Nationality Act. When Sabraw responded that the government still hadn’t presented a substantive due process rationale, Fabian said the government has a right to separate parents who are jailed for violating the law from their children while those parents are behind bars. The ACLU, in this lawsuit, is not contesting that fact. What it is contesting is the government’s apparent policy of refusing to return children to parents once they’ve served their time—generally around a month for misdemeanor illegal entry—and of taking children from parents who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry seeking asylum and have not been charged with any crime.
When confronted about the legality of these practices, the government has merely asserted they are legal without providing a substantive justification. “They can’t come up with a justification because the truth is that the only justification that makes sense is their perceived view of the deterrence value,” Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney litigating the case, told me.
Having reviewed the transcript from the hearing, and having read the government’s legal filings, Gelernt appears to be correct. At May’s hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned Fabian about whether a substantive due process violation had occurred. Fabian asserted it had not. The judge then made clear that the government had to offer an actual argument. “Simply saying there is detention and … therefore the family integrity gives way doesn’t address specifically what’s happening in this case,” Sabraw said. “Doesn’t there have to be some determination in order to comply with Fifth Amendment rights before separately detaining family members?”
Fabian, at this point, simply stated: “We don’t agree that that has to be made.” She then said that when a minor and parent are separated, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act dictates that the minor be placed with another custodian. But she didn’t explain why the decision to indefinitely separate the minor from the parent would be made in the first place.
The notion that a child is better off without his parent not only flies in the face of logic, it also contradicts governmentpolicies.
Later, the judge specifically addressed those situations in which a person has been convicted of an unlawful entry misdemeanor, had their child lawfully separated from them while they were incarcerated, and then been detained by immigration officials separately from their children while awaiting asylum. “Is there any process that [the Department of Health and Human Services] has or DHS has where after a person has served their time, efforts or a process exists to explore the lawful options of reuniting the parent with the child?” Sabraw asked. “There is not a process that would reunite them at that time because she is in ICE custody and remains unavailable,” Fabian responded. “Shouldn’t there be” some process for reuniting “after a person does their time?” the judge asked. Fabian then argued that it is in the best interests of children to remain separated from their detained parent because such a parent is “not going to be a suitable custodian.”
The notion that a child is better off without his parent not only flies in the face of logic, it also contradicts government policies that allow the detention of some undocumented asylum-seekers with their children. If such parents have historically been considered suitable custodians—and in some cases are still considered suitable custodians—how can other similarly situated parents not be considered suitable custodians?
The government ultimately leaned on the argument that DHS must make decisions in a hurry. “The goal is not to prolong that process but to get folks to the location where they can be housed long-term if that is what is going to happen,” Fabian argued. Again, this argument is illogical: It wouldn’t take any longer to decide to keep parents and children together than it would to decide to separate them. Sabraw also asked if DNA testing might help the government distinguish biological parents from child smugglers, as it had in the case of Ms. L. Fabian said she didn’t know if that was “a feasible option.”
The ACLU has asked the court to allow it to add more plaintiffs to Ms. L v. ICE, which was previously filed with two plaintiffs. One of the motions seeking class certification includes affidavits from several other immigrants who’ve had their children taken away at the border. Those affidavits offer more examples of what it looks like when kids as young as 18 months old are literally ripped away from their parents.
Testimony of Mr. U:
All I can remember is how much my son and I were both crying as they took him away. I do not recall anyone questioning whether I am really his biological father or whether I was a danger to him or abusive in any way. I even had my son’s birth certificate proving I am his father. … It has been six months since I last saw my son.
Testimony of Ms. G:
Shortly after arriving, I was told that I was going to be separated from my daughter. There were no doubts expressed that I was my daughter’s biological mother and I have a birth certificate to show our relationship. They did not say that I was a danger to my daughter or was abusive. … I know that [my children] are having a very hard time detained all by themselves without me. They are only six and four years old in a strange country and they need their parent. I hope I can be with my children very soon. I miss them and am scared for them.
Testimony of Ms. J. I. L.
That day, March 13, a woman came to pick up my kids. I was given only five minutes to say goodbye before J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L. were torn from me. My babies started crying when they found out we were going to be separated. It breaks my heart to remember my youngest wail, “Why do I have to leave? Mami, I want to stay with you!” … In tears myself, I asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be together again soon. I begged the woman who took my children to keep them together so they could at least have each other. She promised she would, and she left with my boys. … I am particularly worried about my older son J.S.P.L. who was not doing well back in El Salvador after he saw MS gang members beat me and threaten me. He did not even want to leave my side to go to the restroom. … Both of my sons need their mother. I do not know if they are eating, sleeping, or even going to the restroom.
Testimony of Mirian:
The U.S. immigration officers then told me that they were taking my [18-month old] son from me. They said he would be going to one place and I would be going to another. I asked why the officers were separating my son from me. They did not provide any reason. … The immigration officers made me walk out with my son to a government vehicle and place my son in a car seat in the vehicle. My son was crying as I put him in the seat. I did not even have a chance to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in his seat. I was crying too. I cry even now when I think about that moment when the border officers took my son away.
Nielsen has said the government is acting as expeditiously as possible in such cases. “It’s not our intent to separate people one day longer than is necessary to prove that there is in fact a custodial relationship,” she told NPR last month. These affidavits call that claim into question.
Gelernt added that he has never seen anything this dramatic in his many years of working on immigration cases and doesn’t believe the public outrage has been nearly commensurate with the actions taking place.
“I just feel like the debate has become so abstract,” Gelernt told me. “If any policymaker could sit in that room for a day and watch these kids begging and screaming not to be taken away, I don’t know how they could continue this practice.” He says he fears the general population is already forgetting about the stakes of this case: “Roseanne will make another comment and the kids will be sitting there for another eight months, and no one will remember them.”
Disingenuous State Department Report Seeks to Block Refugee Women
by JASON DZUBOW on MAY 2, 2018
The 2017 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is out, and the news is not good. The Report makes clear that the Department of State (“DOS”) has joined our government’s effort to block asylum seekers by any means necessary–including undermining their claims by lying about conditions in the home countries.
A lie is a lie, no matter how many times they try to tell you otherwise.
Let’s start with a bit about the Report itself. Each year, the State Department issues a human rights report for every country in the world. Information in the Report is gleaned from U.S. diplomats “in country,” and from other sources. The U.S. government uses the Reports in various ways, including to help evaluate asylum cases. So when a Report indicates that country conditions are safe, it becomes more difficult for asylum seekers to succeed with their claims.
There have always been issues with these Reports. From the point of view of advocates like me, the Reports sometimes minimize a country’s human rights problems. When that happens, we can submit other evidence–NGO reports, expert witness reports, news articles–to show that our clients face danger despite the optimistic picture painted by the DOS Report. But the fact is, whatever other evidence we submit, the DOS Report carries a lot of weight. It’s certainly not impossible to win an asylum case where the Report is not supportive, but it is more difficult. I imagine that’s doubly true for pro se asylum applicants, who might not be aware of the Report, and might not submit country condition information to overcome it.
That’s why this year’s DOS Report is so disappointing, especially with regards to certain populations. The group I am concerned with today is female asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). Countries in the Northern Triangle are very dangerous for women. As a result, many women from this region have come to the United States in search of protection.
Over the past two decades, the U.S. government has grudgingly recognized that some such women meet the definition of refugee. But even so, it is still very difficult for most such women–especially if they are unrepresented–to navigate the convoluted path to asylum.
The Trump Administration is working on several fronts to make it even more difficult for women from the Northern Triangle to obtain asylum. For one thing, the Attorney General seems to be reconsidering precedential case law that has cracked open the door for female asylum seekers. He is also moving to charge some “illegal border crossers” with crimes (though it is legal to seek asylum at a port of entry). And now, the 2017 DOS Report is undercutting the factual basis for such claims by whitewashing the dangerous conditions faced by women in Central America.
Just looking at some basic statistics, it’s obvious that something is up. The below chart compares the number of words in the “Women” portions of the 2016 and 2017 DOS Reports for Northern Triangle countries. In each case, the length of the Women’s section has been dramatically reduced:
Country
2016 Report
2017 Report
% Reduction
El Salvador
1364
423
69%
Guatemala
1212
283
77%
Honduras
1235
365
70%
As you can see, the “Women” sections of the 2017 Reports are more than 2/3 shorter than in the 2016 Reports. But numbers alone tell only part of the story. Let’s look at some of what the DOS has eliminated from the 2017 Report in the sub-section called “Rape and Domestic Violence” (and, by the way, DOS has entirely eliminated the portion of the Report devoted to “Reproductive Rights,” but that’s a story for another day). The Report for Honduras is typical, and so we’ll use that as an example.
The law criminalizes all forms of rape of men or women, including spousal rape. The government considers rape a crime of public concern, and the state prosecutes rapists even if victims do not press charges. The penalties for rape range from three to nine years’ imprisonment, and the courts enforced these penalties.
Sounds pretty good, aye? The government of Honduras seems to be prosecuting rapists, including spouse-rapists, and the penalties for rape are significant. But here are a few lines from the 2016 Report that didn’t make it into the most recent version:
Violence against women and impunity for perpetrators continued to be a serious problem…. Rape was a serious and pervasive societal problem. The law criminalizes all forms of rape, including spousal rape. The government considers rape a crime of public concern, and the state prosecutes rapists even if victims do not press charges. Prosecutors treat accusations of spousal rape somewhat differently, however, and evaluate such charges on a case-by-case basis…. Violence between domestic and intimate partners continued to be widespread…. In March 2015 the UN special rapporteur on violence against women expressed concern that most women in the country remained marginalized, discriminated against, and at high risk of being subjected to human rights violations, including violence and violations of their sexual and reproductive rights….
So basically what we have is this: The 2017 Report is not a human rights report at all. Rather, it is a report on the state of the law in Honduras. Of course, when the law is not enforced and persecutors enjoy impunity (as indicated in the 2016 Report), laws on the books are not so relevant (and it’s really quite a bit worse than what I’ve indicated here, since the 2016 Report already minimized the violent environment in Honduras–for this reason, in our cases, we often rely on the more honest U.S. Travel Advisory and the OSAC Crime & Safety Report, both created by DOS for U.S. citizens traveling abroad).
How this new Report will impact asylum seekers, we don’t yet know. At a minimum, people will need to supplement their applications with evidence to overcome the rosy picture painted by the DOS Report, and for those asylum seekers who are unable to obtain such evidence, the likelihood of a successful outcome is further reduced.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it again here: What bother’s me most about the Trump Administration’s efforts to block asylum seekers is not that they are making it more difficult to obtain protection–they were elected on a restrictionist platform and they are doing what they said they would do. What bother’s me most is the blatant dishonesty of this Administration, and now of the State Department. If you want to reject female asylum seekers, reject them honestly. Don’t pretend that they are economic migrants and that you are returning them to safe places. At least have the decency to tell them–and the American people–that you are returning them to countries where they face extreme danger and death.
Frankly, there’s nothing too surprising about the new DOS Report. President Trump has made his views on refugees and on women quite clear. But what’s so sad is that the Report represents further evidence that the Administration’s lies have infected yet another esteemed government institution. Not only is this Report bad for asylum seekers, it’s bad for the State Department, which is now complicit in the Administration’s mendacity. Indeed, I can’t help but think that the fate of these asylum seekers is inextricably tied to the fate of the DOS, and the new Report doesn’t bode well for either of them.
Special thanks to Attorney Joanna Gaughan for the idea for this piece. Ms. Gaughan works for the Farrell Law Group in Raleigh, NC. Her practice focuses largely on asylum cases, and she can be reached at joanna.m.gaughan@gmail.com.
**************************************
The outright lies, distortions, intentional misuse of statistics, and knowingly false narratives from Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, Miller and the rest of the White Nationalist crowd is all part of the “de-humanization effort.”
Truth be told, the two previous Administrations returned refugees and others entitled to protection to countries where they were in danger. This Administration has ramped up the deadly, illegal, and inhumane program. De-humanization is just part of the effort to mask the full scope of their human rights violations. Not that Trump supporters care too much about human rights, Constitutional rights, or indeed anybody’s rights except their own (which are by no means safe from Trump if he turns on them, as he is wont to do — just ask Jeff “Gonzo Apocalyoto” Sessions or Steve Bannon). Selfish Government for selfish people.
But, the key message here is that the advocacy community needs to inform courts about the biases of the Country Reports and present viable alternatives!
A mother unleashed a piercing scream as her baby was ripped from her arms during a slave auction. Even as a lash cut her back, she refused to put her baby down and climb atop an auction block.
The woman pleaded for God’s mercy, Henry Bibb, a former slave, recalled in an 1849 narrative that is part of “The Weeping Time” exhibit at the Smithsonian’s Museum of African American History and Culture, which documents the tragic history of children being separated from their parents during slavery. “But the child was torn from the arms of its mother amid the most heart-rending shrieks from the mother and child on the one hand, and the bitter oaths and cruel lashes from the tyrants on the other.”
Her mother was sold to the highest bidder.
Enslaved mothers and fathers lived with the constant fear that they or their children might be sold away.
“Night and day, you could hear men and women screaming … ma, pa, sister or brother … taken without any warning,” Susan Hamilton, another witness to a slave auction, recalled in a 1938 interview. “People was always dying from a broken heart.”
The Trump administration’s current crackdown on families that cross the border illegally has led to hundreds of children, some as young as 18 months, being separated from their parents. The parents are being sent to federal jails to face criminal prosecution while their children are being placed in shelters operated by the Department of Health and Human Services. Often, the children have no idea where their parents are or when they will see them again.
The policy has generated outrage among Democrats and immigration advocates. And it has conjured memories of some of the ugliest chapters in American history.
“Official US policy,” tweeted the African American Research Collaborative over the weekend. “Until 1865, rip African American children from their parents. From 1870s to 1970s, rip Native American children from their parents. Now, rip children of immigrants and refugees from their parents.”
Henry Fernandez, co-founder of the collaborative and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said he drafted the tweet based on his research into several periods in U.S. history when government officials sanctioned the separation of children from their parents, including during slavery.
Another period of family cruelty, Fernandez said, began in the late 1800s and lasted well into the 1970s, when indigenous children across the country were forcibly separated from their families and sent to “Indian schools.” At the boarding schools, the children were required to assimilate. They were stripped of their language and culture. Often they were physically and sometimes sexually abused.
“In each case, we look back at the programs as barbaric,” Fernandez said. “History will similarly consider the Trump administration’s ripping children from their parents as an unconscionably evil government action.”
According to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, beginning in the late 1800s, thousands of American Indian children were sent to government-run or church-run boarding schools.
“Families were often forced to send their children to these schools, where they were forbidden to speak their Native languages,” according to the museum.
The exhibit includes a quote from Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School: “In Indian civilization I am a Baptist,” Pratt wrote, “because I believe in immersing the Indian in our civilization and when we get them under, holding them there until they are thoroughly soaked.”
A teacher and students at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania in 1901. (Library of Congress)
At boarding schools, “children were forced to cut their hair and give up their traditional clothing,” according to the museum. “They had to give up their meaningful Native names and take English ones. They were not only taught to speak English, but were punished for speaking their own languages. Their own traditional religious practices were forcibly replaced with Christianity. They were taught that their cultures were inferior. Some teachers ridiculed and made fun of the students’ traditions. These lessons humiliated the students and taught them to be ashamed of being American Indian.”
“They tell us not to speak in Navajo language. You’re going to school. You’re supposed to only speak English. And it was true. They did practice that, and we got punished if you was caught speaking Navajo,” John Brown Jr., a Navajo who served in World War II as a code talker, using his Navajo language for tactical communications the Japanese could not decode, told the National Museum of the American Indian in a 2004 interview.
“When we got talking, ’cause we’re not allowed to talk our tribal language, and then me and my cousin, we get together and we talk in Indian, we always hush up when we see a teacher or faculty coming,” Charles Chibitty, a Comanche code talker, told the museum in 2004. “And then we always laughed and said, ‘I think they’re trying to make little white boys out of us.’ ”
Government Indian school on the Swinomish Reservation in La Conner, Wash., in 1907. (Library of Congress)
Until the end of the Civil War, it was common for slave owners to rip families apart by selling the children or the parents to other slave owners.
“Along with ongoing rape and the use of the whip to discipline human beings,” Fernandez said, “destroying families is one of the worst things done during slavery. The federal government maintained these evils through the fugitive slave laws and other rules which defined African Americans as property with which a slave owner could do whatever they wanted.”
Each of these U.S. policies, Fernandez said, begins with the assumption “that the idea of family is simply less important to people of color and that the people involved are less than human. To justify ripping families apart, the government must first engage in dehumanizing the targeted group, whether it is Native Americans, African Americans or immigrants from Central America fleeing murder, rape, extortion and kidnapping.”
“There is no question these children are innocent,” Fernandez said, “but Trump associates them with the idea that these are not like your children and thus less than human.”
Slave narratives reveal the heart-wrenching stories of children taken from families.
According to the Maryland State Archives: “For most slave children, the separation from their parents and the siblings was the hardest aspect of being sold. Slaves went to great lengths to keep their family together, but there was often limits to what they could do.”
The report includes a narrative from Charles Ball, who was enslaved as a child and remembered the day he was sold away from his mother.
“My poor mother, when she saw me leaving her for the last time, ran after me, took me down from the horse, clasped me in her arms, and wept loudly and bitterly over me,” Ball recalled. “My master seemed to pity her and endeavored to soothe her distress by telling her that he would be a good master to me, and that I should not want anything.”
Still, his mother would not let go. She walked beside the horse, begging the slave owner to buy her and the rest of her children.
“But whilst thus entreating him to save her and her family,” Ball recalled, “the slave-driver, who had first bought her, came running in pursuit of her with a raw hide in his hand. When he overtook us, he told her he was her master now and ordered her to give that little Negro to its owner and come back with him. My mother then turned to him and cried, ‘Oh, master, do not take me from my child!’ Without making any reply, he gave her two or three heavy blows on the shoulders with his raw hide, snatched me from her arms, handed me to my master, and seizing her by one arm, dragged her back towards the place of sale.”
After the end of the Civil War, thousands of former slaves looked for lost relatives and children who had been sold away from their families. They placed thousands of ads in newspapers.
Mary Bailey searches for her children, Nancy, Ben, Polly, Tempa and Isham Bailey. The ad ran in the Daily Dispatch newspaper in Richmond on Nov. 24, 1866.
Those ads are now being digitized in a project called “Last Seen: Finding Family After Slavery,” which is run by Villanova University’s graduate history program in collaboration with Philadelphia’s Mother Bethel AME Church.
The ads started appearing about 1863. By 1865, when the Civil War ended, they were coming out in streams, thousands of “Information Wanted” notices in black-owned newspapers across the country, seeking any help to find loved ones.
Mothers looked for their children; children looked for their mothers; fathers placed ads for lost sons; sisters looked for sisters; husbands sought their wives; wives tried to find their husbands.
The ads often gave detailed physical descriptions of the missing, names of former slave owners, locations where family members were last seen, and sometimes maps, tracing how many times they were sold from one owner to the next until they were so far from family members all they had to cling to were sketchy memories.
Elizabeth Williams, who had been sold twice since she last saw her children, placed a heart-wrenching ad in the Christian Recorder newspaper in Philadelphia:
“INFORMATION WANTED by a mother concerning her children,” Williams wrote March 17, 1866.
In four column inches, the mother summed up her life, hoping the details would help her find the children. She listed their names — Lydia, William, Allen and Parker — and explained in a few words that she last saw them when they were “formerly owned together” by a man named John Petty, who lived about six miles from Woodbury, Tenn.
She explained how her family was split apart when she was sold again and taken farther south into captivity.
“She has never seen the above-named children since,” the ad said. “Any information given concerning them, however, will be gratefully received by one whose love for her children survives the bitterness and hardships of many long years spent in slavery.”
*******************************************
Resist the toxic, inhumane, immoral, and illegal immigration policies of Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, and the rest of their White Nationalist Gang. “Just say no” to the “Make America Grotesque Again” Mob. Join the New Due Process Army and stand up for the Constitutional rights of everyone in America, regardless of color, creed, or status!
This essay explores the contemporary practice of detaining immigrant women and children — the vast majority of whom are fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking protection in the United States — and the response by a diverse coalition of legal advocates. In spite of heroic advocacy, both within and outside the detention centers from the courts to the media to the White House, family detention continues. By charting the evolution of family detention from the time the Obama Administration resurrected the practice in 2014 and responsive advocacy efforts, this essay maps the multiple levels at which sustained advocacy is needed to stem crises in legal representation and ultimately end family detention.
Due to a perfect storm of indigent detainees without a right to appointed counsel, remote detention centers, and under-resourced nonprofits, legal representation within immigration detention centers is scarce. While the Obama Administration largely ended the practice of family detention in 2009, the same administration started detaining immigrant families en masse just five years later. In response to the rise in numbers of child migrants seeking protection in the United States arriving both with and without their parents, and with the purported aim of deterring future flows, the Obama administration reinstituted the policy of detaining families. The Ad- ministration calls these detention centers “family residential centers,” while advocates use the term “baby jail.”
The response from the advocate community was swift and overwhelming. Lawyers and law students from all over the country traveled to the detention centers, in remote areas of New Mexico and later Texas, to meet the urgent need for representation of these asylum-seeking families. This essay calls for continued engagement by attorneys throughout the nation in filling the justice gap and providing representation to these asylum-seeking families and other detained immigrants.
The crisis in representation for detained immigrants is deepening. Given the success of intensive representation at the family detention centers discussed in this article, advocates are beginning to experiment with the same models in other locations. For example, at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in conjunction with four other organizations, launched the Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative in 2017. This initiative enlists and trains lawyers to provide free legal representation to immigrants detained in the Southeast who are facing deportation proceedings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council have partnered to create the Immigration Justice Campaign, where pro bono attorneys are trained and mentored when providing representation to detained immigrants in typically underserved locations. Given the expansion of the volunteer model of providing legal services to detained immigrants, opportunities will continue to arise for lawyers, law students, and others to engage in crisis lawyering and advocacy. This article provides the background to understand the government’s practice of detaining families, to the extent that it can be understood, and to emphasize a continuing need for legal services for this population.
The introduction explains the population of asylum seekers and the law and procedure governing their arrival, detention, and release into the United States. The essay then traces the evolution of the U.S. government’s most recent experiment in detaining families from the summer of 2014 to present. The next part outlines the access to counsel crisis for immigrant mothers and children in detention and highlights the difference that representation makes. The article concludes with a call to action to attorneys and non-attorney volunteers nationwide to commit and re-commit to providing services to detained immigrant families and individuals.
MY FAVORITE QUOTE:
We are in an era of incredible need for immigration legal services. That need is most acute within detention centers located outside of major metro- politan areas, including within the family detention centers.
Ultimately, neither the Trump nor the Obama administration can claim to have won or be “winning” with the policy of family detention. The vast majority of women and children still receive a positive result during their credible fear interviews, because they are indeed individuals fleeing persecu- tion under the Refugee Convention. It is a poor use of resources, then, to continue to detain this population. Instead, tax-payer dollars, government energy, and resources, should be invested in providing representation and case management for this population to ensure that they appear in court and follow all required procedures to pursue their claims for protection.125 In the current era of intense immigration enforcement, combined with the Trump Administration’s plans to increase detention bed space and Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Session’s clear attacks on asylum-seekers,126 family de- tention is, however, likely here to stay.
In light of this reality, crowdsourcing refugee rights, as Stephen Man- ning articulates, is more important than ever.127 It is heartening to see the expansion of the model of lawyering within immigration detention centers expand to centers in Georgia and Louisiana, where asylum grant rates are dismal, conditions of detention dire, with a historical extreme lack of access to counsel. Lawyers are needed to ensure that individuals can properly ac- cess their due process rights and to help the immigration court system run more smoothly.128
Lawyers, specialized in immigration or not, must arm themselves with the knowledge and tools to join this fight. Just as non-immigration lawyers quickly rose to a call to action in January at the airports,129 lawyers must again rise, and continue rising, to provide representation for families and individuals held in immigration detention. This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable.
********************************************
Lindsay is “one of the best.” We were colleagues at Georgetown Law when I was an Adjunct Professor and she held the prestigious “CALS Fellowship” working with Professors Andy Schoenholtz and Phil Schrag (of “Refugee Roulette fame”). Lindsay was a guest lecturer in my Refugee Law & Policy class, and I have since returned the favor at both George Mason Law and UDC Law where she now teaches with another of my good friends and superstars, Professor Kristina Campbell. Indeed, my friend Judge Dorothy Harbeck and I are “regulars” at their class and are in the process of planning another session this fall.
Lindsay and Kristina “talk the talk and walk the walk.” They appeared before me frequently at the Arlington Immigration Court with their clinical students. The have also gone “on site” at some of the worst immigration detention facilities in the country to help refugees in need.
In a truly unbiased, merit-based, independent, Immigration Court system (of the future) they would be ideal judges at either the trial or appellate level. They possess exactly the types of amazing scholarship, expertise and “hands on” experience representing actual individual clients before our Immigration Courts that is sorely lacking in, and in my view has largely been systematically banished from, the 21st Century immigration judiciary, to the detriment of our Immigration Courts, Due Process, and the entire American justice system. That’s one reason why our Immigration Courts are functioning so poorly in basic areas like efficiency, deliberation, quality control, and fundamental fairness!
Some important “take aways” from this article:
Contrary to Administration propaganda and false narratives, most of the recent arrivals who have lawyers are found to have credible claims for protection under our laws.
Similarly, if given fair access to competent counsel and time to prepare and present their claims in a non-coercive setting to a truly unbiased decision-maker, I believe that majority would be granted asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
This is the truth that Trump, Sessions, & Company don’t want revealed: most of the folks we are so cavalierly mistreating are, in fact, legitimate refugees, even under current legal rulings that have been intentionally and unfairly skewed against asylum applicants from Central America for years!
Even those who don’t currently fit the arcane legal categories for protection probably have a legitimate fear of harm or death upon return. They certainly are entitled to fully present and litigate their claims before being returned to life-threatening situations.
Finally, a better country, with better, wiser, more humane leaders, would devise ways of offering these individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle at least temporary protection, either here or in another stable country in this hemisphere, while doing something constructive to address the severe, festering, chronic human rights problems in the Northern Triangle that are sending us these refugees.
The “enforcement only” approach has failed over and over in the past and will continue to do so until we get better political leadership in the future.
In the meantime, join Lindsay, Kristina, and the other “Charter Members of the New Due Process Army” in resisting the evil, immoral, and illegal policies of the Trump Administration.
Due Process Forever! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!
The number of migrants attempting to cross illegally into the United States remained high last month, according to administration officials and Border Patrol agents, an early indication that “zero tolerance” measures separating parents from their children and President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops have not had an immediate deterrent effect.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected to publish its closely watched monthly arrest totals in coming days, and Trump administration officials are bracing for a new eruption from the president. He has treated the statistics as a gauge for the success of his hard-line immigration policies, and when border arrests fell to historic lows in the months after his inauguration last year, Trump touted the decrease as a personal triumph.
Since then, migration trends have reversed. In March and again in April, border arrests exceeded 50,000, the highest monthly totals of Trump’s presidency, sending him into fits of rage, aides say. Trump unloaded on DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen during a Cabinet meeting May 9, scorching her for nearly 30 minutes over the spike in illegal crossings, while demanding she “close” the border.
The Trump administration is preparing to renew its push for an $18 billion border wall plan that would also tighten asylum procedures and overhaul other laws Trump officials say are encouraging illegal behavior. Trump has threatened to shut down the government this fall if Democrats don’t provide the funds.
But with midterm elections approaching and the president preparing to campaign on his border crackdown, Nielsen and other Homeland Security officials do not appear to be satisfying his strict enforcement targets. May’s arrest totals are expected to be at least as high as the previous two months, administration officials and Border Patrol agents said.
Large groups of Central American migrants have been taken into custody in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas in recent weeks, according to Border Patrol agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss operations. During one 24-hour span last month, 434 migrants were processed at the Border Patrol station in McAllen, agents said.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and President Trump have had a contentious relationship as illegal border crossings increase.(Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)
“The numbers have been very high,” said one agent assigned to the Rio Grande Valley, the nation’s busiest corridor for illegal migration. “It’s to the point that we have had to bring in buses to come out and load these folks up, or send four of five vans at a time.”
Another agent said so many migrants were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley last month that many were diverted to other sections of the border for processing. The Justice Department has reassigned additional prosecutors to the border region to increase the number of migrants it charges with federal crimes, but one veteran border agent said it was “too early to tell” if the tougher enforcement measures were giving pause to migrants thinking of making the journey from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
“It’s going to take longer for the message to get back to those countries,” the agent said.
On Friday, Homeland Security officials would not say whether the tougher enforcement measures were meeting their goals. They said the May border arrest totals were not ready for publication, and they would not confirm whether the figures have been sent to the White House.
“The bottom line is Congress needs to act and close loopholes that serve as a tremendous pull factor for illegal immigration,” said Tyler Houlton, a DHS spokesman. “The Trump administration is restoring the rule of law by increasing prosecutions of illegal border crossers.”
According to a Trump adviser, the president was warned this spring that illegal border crossings were likely to increase. Trump said at the time he would not be satisfied with any such surge and everything needed to be done to block it. That led to the decision to deploy the National Guard.
The number of illegal border crossings “is going to go higher and higher yet,” said the adviser. “You’re going to see a line that goes up all summer long.”
Trump has not been briefed on the May arrest numbers yet, two advisers said.
In a statement late Friday, Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller blamed Democrats for blocking the president’s immigration overhaul.
“The illegal migrant crisis is the exclusive product of Democrats’ shameless refusal to close catch-and-release loopholes that cartels exploit to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States at great cost in taxpayer dollars, jobs and, too often, lives,” Miller said.
Weak border enforcement remains the biggest incentive to illegal migration, according to Miller. “We must end catch-and-release by reforming our asylum laws, and establishing expedited removal, to stop the smuggling and defend the nation,” he said.
As in recent years, many of those taken into custody last month were teenagers or parents traveling with children, and the administration has triggered broad condemnation for separating more families with its push to prosecute anyone who crosses illegally.
More than 10,800 migrant children were in federal custody as of May 31, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, up 21 percent since the end of April. The agency’s shelters are 95 percent full, and HHS officials say they are preparing to add thousands of additional beds to cope with the increase.
A Border Patrol agent in South Texas said the family separation measures were not being applied as broadly as assumed. Some parents who face federal charges are apart from their children for only several hours, then released and assigned a court date, the agent said.
“To us, that’s still ‘catch-and-
release,’ ” the agent said. “People are going to continue to come.”
Arrests along the Mexican border peaked at more than 1.6 million in 2000, then fell sharply during the Obama administration. During the government’s past fiscal year that ended in September, U.S. agents made 303,916 arrests, the lowest total since 1971.
Trump’s fixation is driven, in part, by a view that border security is paramount to his most fervent supporters and that immigration is a winning issue for Republican candidates in November’s congressional elections.
“I’m very proud to say that we’re way down in the people coming across the border,” Trump said in January. “We have fewer people trying to come across, because they know it’s not going to happen.”
The arrest numbers began shooting upward soon after that, from 36,682 in February to 50,296 in March. The yearly total for 2018 is on pace to approach or exceed 400,000, a level more consistent with migration patterns of the past five years, DHS statistics show.
During a visit Thursday to the Nogales border crossing in southern Arizona, Nielsen called the increase in illegal migration a crisis and said Homeland Security officials were working to “end this lawlessness.”
The country’s borders are being violated “by criminals, by smugglers and by thousands of people who have absolutely no respect for our laws,” she said.
“This is changing, it will change, and we will do all that we can to change this,” Nielsen added, emphasizing that the “zero-tolerance” approach announced in April will be applied as aggressively as possible.
“If you come here illegally, whether you’re single, whether you have a family, whether you’re a smuggler or whether you’re a trafficker, you’ve broken the law, so we’re prosecuting,” she said.
On Friday, Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding information on the administration’s enforcement efforts, including the number of children who have been separated from their parents and whether there are formal procedures to reunite them.
Border arrests typically rise during spring months, when seasonal labor demands increase. Farms across the Midwest are becoming desperate for workers, with the U.S. unemployment rate at the lowest level since 2000. Lawmakers from both parties have told Nielsen that worker shortages are squeezing an array of industries in their states, and the DHS said last week that it will issue 15,000 seasonal guest-worker visas.
But border agents said much of the increase this spring seems to be driven by the same groups — families and teenagers traveling alone — who have been straining Homeland Security capacity since the 2014 crisis that left Border Patrol stations overflowing.
Photos of recent mass arrests provided by one agent show migrants of all ages walking through willow groves along the Rio Grande or lined up in federal custody along the river levees, waiting to board government buses.
Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.
********************************************
No surprises here. “Toldja so” back when Trump unwisely declared “Victory at Sea” after a few months of reduced border apprehensions. Since Trump is proudly ignorant of history, he apparently didn’t study what happened to Bushie II after he declared “Victory in Iraq” or his “Heck of Job, Brownie” moment. Nor does he have any idea of the actual dynamics driving human migration. That’s the problem with policies driven by racism, bias, xenophobia, and White Nationalism.
Also, trying to rewrite the Constitution and international protection law, as Trump, Sessions, Miller, Cotton, and the rest of the White Nationalist Gang would dearly like to do, to deny established legal rights won’t work either. In fact, it would make things 10X worse.
The laws aren’t the problem! The problem is the people charged with implementing them.
We can diminish ourselves as a nation, (and in fact, we are diminishing under Trump) but it won’t stop human migration!
Here’s what a practicing immigration attorney has to say about what’s really happening in our broken U.S. Immigration Court system:
I was at the FBA conference in Denver and your keynote speech made me feel like someone actually understands the tragedies that are unfolding in our immigration court system, and is trying to do something about it. Each time I go into court I try to look at the system with new eyes and refreshed hope that today’s trial will be different. Each time I leave court I am reminded of how blatantly biased the judges can be, how the government attorneys are given special treatment, how our clients are badgered and treated inhumanely, and how the “dirty immigration lawyers” such as myself are treated with disdain. I know that I will be ok, but worry to the point of losing sleep over how my clients are treated. Yesterday as I left court after an individual hearing for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, my client told me she felt like she was not a human being because of the way she was treated during the trial. I consider myself a part of the due process army and want to know what else I can do to advocate for serious changes, including a complete overhaul, of the EOIR system. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you.
Here’s my response:
You can:
1) Take cases to the Article III Courts. They still have no idea of how Due Process is being mocked every day in the Immigration Courts. They need to be forced to accept responsibility for this travesty which they have the power to end.
2) Make a record of how the IJs are ignoring facts of record and applicable law because they have prejudged cases.
3) Get out the vote for candidates who put Dreamer relief, an independent Immigration Court, and an end to unnecessary and expensive immigration detention at the top of their legislative “to do” list. (Something that the Dems conspicuously failed to do when Obama was elected in 2008).
4) Actively support candidates for state and local office who are pledged to resist the divisive and racially motivated immigration policies of this Administration to the extent possible under the law.
5) Support efforts for universal representation.
It’s both telling and disturbing that most of us who understand the system’s failings and are committed to fixing them are now outside the system — where our voices actually can be heard, our views are taken seriously, and the truth about the national disgrace taking place in our U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump & Sessions can be spoken.
Yes, there are many conscientious, courageous, and hard-working Immigration Judges still in the system. But, they have been “muzzled, degraded, and disrespected.” Instead, those Immigration Judges who are biased against respondents, particularly asylum seekers, willing to cut corners, and oblivious to what Constitutional Due Process actually means for individuals are being empowered and encouraged by Sessions.
How is it fair or reasonable to have a so-called “court system” where conscientious attorneys like this are “losing sleep” over the unfair, degrading, and dehumanizing treatment that they are receiving at the hands of supposed Federal Judges in what purports to be a Federal Court system? Totally outrageous!
Attorneys — particularly those appearing pro bono and “low bono” — are the undisputed heroes of this system, the only ones standing between the Immigration Courts and unimaginable chaos and injustice at the hands of Jeff Sessions. Indeed, notwithstanding this reprehensible mistreatment, private attorneys are leading the battle for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts over the objections of the DOJ and EOIR. What does that tell you about this system?
A “real” Attorney General, who took his oath of office seriously, would slow down this entire farce and direct retraining of every judge in the system in what “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all,” carrying out the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA in Mogharrabi, and actually reflected in the current regulations really mean in practice!
If Due Process, asylum law, withholding law, and the CAT were properly and fairly applied, the vast majority of applicants and recent arrivals could be competently represented and granted some type of protection either by the DHS or in “short block” Immigration Court hearings. That would both fulfill the law and help reduce the backlog pressure on Immigration Courts, as well as reducing the number of needless petitions for review being filed in the Courts of Appeals to correct basic errors committed by the BIA and the Immigration Courts!
Instead, we are stuck with a “scofflaw” Attorney General who intends to establish and reinforce “worst practices.” It will take a concerted effort on the part of the New Due Process Army to halt the Trump Administration’s attack on human decency and our constitutional rights in the Immigration Court system!
Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!
Since October, more than 700 minor children have been separated from their parents at the border. More than 100 have been under 4 years old.
Some, like an 18-month-old Honduran boy torn from his mother in February, are just toddlers.
“The immigration officers made me walk out with my son to a government vehicle and place my son in a car seat in the vehicle. My son was crying as I put him in the seat,” the boy’s mother said in a sworn statement. “I did not even have a chance to try to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in his seat. I was crying, too. I cry even now when I think about that moment when the border officers took my son away.”
This mom was not trying to “sneak across” the border, by the way. She had crossed an international bridge into Brownsville, Tex., and presented herself to immigration authorities to request asylum from political violence.
Instead of receiving refuge, she lost her child. It was months before they were reunited.
Such stories are enraging and shameful. They also put the lie to sacred principles that Republican politicians have long claimed to stand for, chiefly: family values and rule of law.
For decades, Republicans have championed traditional family values and having parents, rather than the state, take responsibility for their children.
This Republican administration’s inhumane treatment of helpless children — who are ripped from their mothers’ arms, detained in human warehouses and drop-kicked into “foster care or whatever” — reveals such rhetoric to have been a scam.
The Trump administration’s goal is to inflict pain upon these families. Cruelty is not an unfortunate, unintended consequence of White House immigration policy; it is the objective.
After all, if forced separations are sufficiently agonizing, fewer families will try to come here, no matter how dangerous their home countries are. Administration members have argued as much.
Last year, then-Homeland Security secretary John F. Kelly acknowledged he was considering separating children from their parents at the border “to deter” potential border-crossers. Again this month, he said “a big name of the game is deterrence.”
This vile and unpopular policy has been roundly condemned, including by prominent conservatives. So President Trump did what he always does when facing backlash for usingchildren (remember the “dreamers” and children’s health insurance?) as a bargaining chip: Blame the Dems.
“Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S.,” Trump tweeted Saturday.
Got that? Our law-and-order-obsessed president is merely enforcing an evil Democratic law!
There is, however, no statute — supported by Democrats or otherwise — that requires immigrant families to be torn apart.
The most cogent possible point Trump could have been making is one that other Republicans have made: that crossing the border unlawfully is a crime. If you prosecute every border crossing criminally — as Trump’s administration says it now does, even for asylum seekers — that means parents will go to jail.
And as Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen put it, when parents go to jail, whether for unlawful entry or another crime, that requires separating them from their children.
Which is true, to a point; prisons generally can’t house children.
But here’s the part Trump apologists neglect to mention: The government is keeping immigrant families forcibly separated even after criminal proceedings are over and the parents get released from jail.
Take the case of a Brazilian family that also crossed the border to seek asylum.
The mother, named in court documents as “Ms. C.,” was prosecuted for entering the country illegally in August 2017, a misdemeanor for which she spent 25 days in jail. Her 14-year-old son was sent to a facility in Chicago.
After she was released, she passed a “credible fear interview” and began the process of applying for asylum. She was sent first to an immigration detention center, then released to a nonprofit shelter in El Paso. This shelter is willing to take in her son.
But the government still refuses to release him. She has been out of detention for five weeks and still hasn’t been allowed to see her boy.
“What they’re really basically saying is that these people don’t have a due-process right to remain with their child,” says American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project Deputy Director Lee Gelernt, who is representing Ms. C. and other asylum-seeking immigrants challenging Trump’s family separation policy. The Constitution, of course, guarantees due process for all, regardless of immigration status.
Cruelty and unconstitutionality: the platform of today’s Republican Party.
Just because Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that every illegal immigrant crossing the border would be prosecuted (resulting in parents being separated from their children), that doesn’t mean it’s morally defensible.
On May 23, an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of a group of 13 former immigration judges (including myself) and BIA members in the appeal of the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-. In that decision, a three-judge panel of the BIA held that an asylum applicant must clearly delineate its proposed particular social group before the immigration judge. The Board held that the asylum applicant may not alter the social group formulation on appeal to the BIA, citing the “inherently factual nature of the social group analysis.”
Our brief argues that the Board’s reasoning is flawed. The Board has held that the determination of whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law which the Board may review de novo. Our brief also points out that the Board’s arguments as to why it will generally not consider a new group on appeal overlooks the fact that it has done just that in the past.
One member of our group, former BIA chairperson Paul W. Schmidt, was the author if the Board’s 1996 landmark decision in Matter of Kasinga, the first BIA precedent to grant a gender-based asylum claim. Two other members of our group, former Board Members Gus Villageliu, and Lory D. Rosenberg, respectively joined in the majority opinion and wrote a concurring opinion in Kasinga. As the three pointed out in the drafting process, the particular social group that the Board approved in that case was neither delineated before the IJ nor proposed by either party on appeal. It was crafted for the first time by the Board itself, in a manner that was consistent with the factual record below and which allowed the Board to grant relief. The three noted that the ability of the Board itself to alter the group’s contours is often necessary to allow an en banc Board to reach consensus.
Our brief also pointed to the Board’s decision in Matter of M-E-V-G- to remand the record where “the respondent’s proposed particular social group has evolved during the pendency of his appeal.” We also point out how circuit courts have frequently cited to the Board’s decades-long practice of clarifying proposed groups.
Our brief additionally underscores the extreme complexity of particular social group formulation, particularly in light of the highly-criticized additional requirements of particularly and social distinction imposed by the Board in recent years. We note that group delineations will often be made by pro se respondents, often with a limited mastery of English, sometimes in detained facilities with limited access to counsel or law libraries.
This was the sixth Amicus brief filed by our group. We are most thankful for the outstanding assistance of attorneys Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe of the law firm of Sidley Austin for lending their assistance pro bono for the second time in the drafting of our group’s brief. We also acknowledge the distinguished counsel for the respondents, led by Fatma Marouf of Texas A&M Law School, Geoff Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, and Deborah Anker of Harvard Law School.
Citizenship a key sticking point on immigration as 2 more Republicans sign petition to force votes
By Lauren Fox and Tal Kopan, CNN
Talks between Republicans across the political spectrum trying to find middle ground on a potential immigration deal that would unite the conference have reached a crossroads — and one again it has to do with citizenship.
At the moment leaders are trying to find a sweet spot between moderates and conservatives in the conference on what would be a permanent solution for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump has ended but whose ultimate fate has been tied up in the court system. Conservatives have long argued that they are opposed to any kind of “special path” to citizenship for DACA recipients with some opposed to any path to citizenship at all. Meanwhile, moderates — who are just a handful of signatures from forcing a wide-ranging immigration debate next month — are pushing to ensure that DACA recipients can have a path to citizenship eventually.
On Thursday, two more moderate Republicans, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Tom Reed of New York, became the 22nd and 23rd GOP signature on the petition to force a vote on a series of immigration bills next month. If Republicans get at least 26 signatures, combined with 192 of 193 Democratic signature, the petition would force the votes. Only one Democratic House member has said so far that he will not sign the petition.
According to sources familiar with the negotiations, during a meeting with leaders Wednesday, GOP leaders were still trying to gauge whether the House Freedom Caucus would support a plan that would offer a bridge for DACA recipients to apply for green cards. Then, once a DACA recipient had a green card they could eventually apply for citizenship like other immigrants.
Talks are unlikely to move forward substantially before that issue is resolved, and it is unlikely that a decision will come before lawmakers return from their Memorial Day break, which started Thursday.
Trump calls for sweeping changes to US immigration legal process
By: Allie Malloy and Tal Kopan, CNN
President Donald Trump suggested in an interview that sweeping changes to what he described as a “corrupt” immigration legal system were necessary, while also questioning the need for a legal process for people apprehended trying to cross into the US illegally.
“How do you hire thousands of people to be a judge? So it’s ridiculous, we’re going to change the system. We have no choice for the good of our country,” Trump said in an interview that aired Thursday on Fox News.
“Other countries have what’s called security people. People who stand there and say you can’t come in. We have thousands of judges and they need thousands of more judges. The whole system is corrupt. It’s horrible,” Trump told “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade. He didn’t explain what he meant by “corrupt” and Kilmeade didn’t press him about the comment.
Trump also questioned the process of immigrants going through the court system at all.
“Whoever heard of a system where you put people through trials? Where do these judges come from?” he said.
The suggestion of eliminating the courts and judges, however, is contrary to the policies currently being carried out by his own administration, and would likely violate the Constitution and international law in addition to federal law. The Justice Department declined to comment on the remarks.
Asked by a reporter about Trump’s comments, California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a former immigration attorney who is now the top Democrat on the main immigration law subcommittee in the House, said they run counter to US values and law.
“I guess he has no belief in due process and the Constitution,” Lofgren said.
Comments run counter to Justice policies
At odds with Trump’s comments is his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has made overhauling the immigration courts a top priority, including in the support of hiring more immigration judges. The Justice Department has touted Sessions’ efforts as essential to combating illegal immigration and making the system stronger.
To state the obvious, there is no “immigration crisis” in America today other than that created or aggravated by Trump and his toxic scofflaw policies! On the other hand, Trump is a Constitutional crisis unfolding in real time!
In recent years, the United States has been something of a beacon of hope for women fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. In 2014, in a giant step forward, immigration courts explicitly determined that a person fleeing severe domestic violence may be granted asylum here if the violence rises to the level of persecution, if the government in the victim’s home country cannot or will not punish her abuser and if various other criteria are met. It’s a high bar but one that, sadly, women from many countries can clear. Now their last chance at protection may be under threat.
The case that established that certain victims of domestic violence are eligible for asylum was decided in a landmark ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest court in our immigration judicial system.
The survivor in the case, a Guatemalan named Aminta Cifuentes, was a victim of severe physical and sexual abuse. Ms. Cifuentes had endured 10 years of unrelenting violence at the hands of her spouse, who burned her with acid, beat and kicked her, broke her nose and punched her in the stomach with such force when she was eight months pregnant that the baby was born prematurely and with bruises. Her husband told her it would be pointless to call the police, because “even the police and judges beat their wives.”
The ruling that granted her protection was a transformative one, not just for Ms. Cifuentes but for our country, too. At last, the United States stood firmly in opposition to violence against women and recognized that we can and should offer hope to survivors.
In March, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in an unusual move, suddenly and inexplicably stepped into this seemingly settled matter to assign a similar petition for asylum, known as the Matter of A-B–, to himself for reconsideration.
The facts in the Matter of A-B- are similar to those in the 2014 case. Ms. A-B-, a Salvadoran, was brutalized by her husband for 15 years. He beat and kicked her, including while she was pregnant; bashed her head against a wall; threatened her with death while holding a knife to her throat and while brandishing a gun; and threatened to hang her. Ms. A-B- attempted to secure state protection to no avail.
When she went to the police after her husband attacked her with a knife, their response was that if she had any “dignity,” she would leave him. When Ms. A-B- did attempt to leave her husband, he tracked her down, raped her and threatened to kill her. When she finally got a divorce, her ex-husband told her that if she thought the divorce freed her from him, she was wrong. She fled the country after he told her that he and his friends were going to kill her and dump her body in a river.
When Ms. A-B- came to the United States seeking asylum, her case was heard by an immigration judge in Charlotte, N.C., named V. Stuart Couch, who is notorious for his high denial rate. Judge Couch denied her asylum; Ms. A-B- appealed, and the decision was overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the same board that had ruled favorably in the 2014 case.
The board sent the case back to Judge Couch for security checks to be completed and asylum to be granted. Without any explanation, Judge Couch held on to the case and refused to grant asylum as directed. And then, deviating from normal procedures, Mr. Sessions took jurisdiction.
The attorney general does have the power to reconsider any decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the procedural irregularities, paired with the possibility that Mr. Sessions may be using his authority to upend the precedent set in the Cifuentes case, are troubling. Mr. Sessions has given himself the power not only to decide Ms. A-B-’s fate but also ultimately to try to rule on how our country handles claims for all survivors of domestic violence looking for asylum.
To be clear, we do not yet know what Mr. Sessions will decide. But in the context of the Trump administration’s antipathy toward asylum seekers, and Mr. Sessions’s statements and actions with regard to immigrant women, his decision to assign himself jurisdiction does not bode well. Asylum seekers who have arrived at the American border seeking protection have been vilified by this administration.
The government has targeted women in ways that would have been unthinkable under prior administrations, including separating mothers who arrive at the border from their children and detaining pregnant women. Mr. Sessions himself has expressed his deep skepticism about asylum claims based on gender-related persecution.
At a time when violence against women and girls is a global crisis, a decision to deny protection to women who flee gender violence, including domestic violence, would be a grave mistake. This is a moment of truth of our country. Will we remain a beacon of hope for women worldwide whose lives are on the line because of domestic violence, and whose governments cannot or will not protect them? The answer, it seems, is in the attorney general’s hands.
Matter of A-B-, was a straight-forward application by the BIA of its existing precedents on asylum for victims of domestic violence.
The Immigration Judge who wrongfully denied the original asylum application appeared to disregard the BIA’s mandate to check fingerprints and grant on remand, and instead delayed the case without any apparent valid reason for doing so.
Sessions “certified” this case to himself either though neither party had requested his intervention and, remarkably, the DHS requested that the certification be dissolved to allow the BIA to resolve any issues under its existing framework of asylum precedents.
Sessions has made a number of inflammatory, anti-asylum statements including several made in a speech to EOIR adjudicators.
Is this “Justice In America?” Or, is it a “Parody of Justice In America” taking place in a “captive court system” dedicated to one-sided enforcement rather than fairness and Due Process.
Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight against Sessions’s perversion of the U.S. Immigration Court system to fit his “enforcement only” viewpoint.
