"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
For many of the thousands of asylum-seekers from all over the world who have arrived in New York City in the last year, Thanksgiving is just another day – considering what they’ve been through. And what lies ahead.
The holiday is one more day to focus on immigrations papers, jobs to secure, a new language to learn, and a cold and sprawling city to navigate.
“We want to adapt to new traditions,” said Garcia, speaking Saturday at a Manhattan middle school where she and other migrants baked pumpkin pies they distributed to homeless shelters with the help of a nonprofit that provides free legal representation for children and families.
“We will always have Venezuela in our hearts. But we will need to adapt to new customs in order to survive here.”
. . . .
************************
Read the full article at the link.
Survivors, contributors, adaptors, seeking the same universal human rights: safety, security, meaningful work, a better future! Don’t let the myths and fears bury the truth and humanity! Also, this article highlights the essential role of the many NGOs who have stepped up to make the system work, sometimes in spite of itself!
Paul, the holiday season is a time filled with joy, festivities, and yes, perhaps even a few challenging political discussions at the dinner table.
Most of us can relate to that moment when someone decides to bring up a political topic just as the turkey is being carved, or right before dessert. Our country is undeniably divided, and sometimes these divisive conversations can even make their way into our family gatherings.
The NILC-IJF team is committed to equipping you with the tools and information you may need to navigate tough conversations on immigration this holiday season.
Here are a few quick facts to keep in your back pocket:
When someone mentions the so-called “border crisis”…
There is not a “border crisis,” but rather a humanitarian crisis at our border.
This humanitarian crisis has worsened over the years because of an overwhelming backlog of cases, resources not being funneled to lawful and humane processing, and harmful policy choices, such as the implementation of the Title 42 expulsion order. These choices have decimated our asylum system, making it almost impossible for people fleeing violence and seeking safety to access their legal right to seek asylum.
When someone starts talking about DACA…
DACA recipients contribute so much to our communities — they are students, teachers, nurses, doctors, and loved ones who have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives.
Year after year, in poll after poll, a majority of Americans across party lines support Congress passing a pathway to citizenship for immigrant youth.
In fact, a survey from Pew Research Center found that 74% of Americans support a law that would provide permanent legal status for immigrant youth.
When someone mentions taxes or the economy…
Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes nationwide (Source: Internal Revenue Service).
Immigrants play a crucial role in contributing to the U.S. economy, starting businesses, creating jobs, and driving innovation.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, immigrants were responsible for over half of the U.S. startup companies valued at $1 billion or more in 2020.
Engaging in difficult political conversations with family and friends is a crucial step in advocating for immigrants’ rights. Sometimes, it only takes one conversation to make a difference, while other times, it may take many more. But each conversation contributes to building a more informed and compassionate society.
Thank you for taking the time to read through the quick facts we shared above, and we hope they are helpful if someone brings up immigration this holiday season.
Paid for by NILC Immigrant Justice Fund, immigrantjusticefund.org, not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
*****************
Yes, I know that the “rule of thumb” is to avoid politics, religion, and other potentially divisive topics at the Thanksgiving table. But, not everybody follows the rules. So, it’s always prudent to be prepared.
We can’t give up on advancing and advocating for truth, hope, and humanity over myths, fear, loathing, and misunderstanding! In that respect, this more hopeful article by local columnist Courtland Milloy in today’s WashPost illustrates how a diverse group of his “Gen Z” students are embracing rational dialogue and problem solving to build a better future! https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/21/courtland-milloy-northern-virginia-community-college/. Courtland observes:
Having access to a supportive community college such as NOVA, where an international student body tends to coalesce around a common struggle to make it against the odds, added to the students’ sense of optimism about their future.
Immigration, of all types, can and should be a source of optimism and dynamism for the future! But, it won’t happen unless we are willing to take on the myths and naysayers head-on with truth and reality!
Victims of Rwanda’s Genocide Public Realm Three decades ago, Rwanda was the scene of a horrible genocide. Now, UK right wing pols think it’s an ideal place to “orbit” refugees, in violation of international laws!
Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
Judges uphold appeal court ruling over risk to deported refugees and deals blow to PM’s ‘stop the boats’ strategy
By Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor
The Guardian 15 November 2023
UK politics live – latest updates
Rishi Sunak’s key immigration policy has been dealt a blow after the UK’s highest court rejected the government’s plans to deport people seeking asylum to Rwanda.
Five judges at the supreme court unanimously upheld an appeal court ruling that found there was a real risk of deported refugees having their claims in the east African country wrongly assessed or being returned to their country of origin to face persecution.
The ruling undermines one of the prime minister’s key pledges: to “stop the boats”. The government claimed that the £140m Rwanda scheme would be a key deterrent for growing numbers of asylum seekers reaching the UK via small boats travelling across the Channel, a claim that refugee charities have rejected.
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
Reading out the judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the supreme court, said the judges agreed unanimously with the court of appeal ruling that there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin.
He pointed to crucial evidence from the United Nations’ refugee agency, the UNHCR, which highlighted the failure of a similar deportation agreement between Israel and Rwanda.
The ruling came the day after the sacked home secretary, Suella Braverman, released an incendiary letter accusing the prime minister of breaking an agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal challenges under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act.
Braverman said Sunak had no “credible plan B” and added: “If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an act of parliament, only to arrive back at square one.”
. . . .
Reed said the legal test in the case was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of being sent back to the countries they came from, where they could face ill treatment.
“In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the court of appeal concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion,” he said.
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said it was a victory for men, women and children who simply wanted to be safe.
He said: “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity. The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys.”
Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, one of the lawyers representing asylum seekers who brought the legal challenge, said: “This is a victory for our brave clients who stood up to an inhumane policy. It is also a victory for the rule of law itself and the separation of powers, despite the noise. It is a timely reminder that governments must operate within the law. We hope that now our clients are able to dream of a better, safer future.”
Advertisement
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the supreme court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.
“The stakes of this case could not have been higher. Every day in our therapy rooms we see the terror that this scheme has inflicted on survivors of torture who have come to the UK seeking sanctuary.”
Steve Smith, the chief executive of the refugee charity Care4Calais, a claimant in the initial legal challenge, said the judgment was “a victory for humanity”.
He added: “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on this cruel policy, and the only receipts the government has are the pain and torment inflicted on the thousands of survivors of war, torture and modern slavery they have targeted with it.
“Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close. Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.”
**************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Here’s what the most recent USDOS Country Report says about human rights in Rwanda:
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidnappings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations.
Sound like a “safe third country” to you? Gimmie a break! The genocide may be in the (not that distant) past, but it’s still a horrible place from a human rights standpoint! Not to mention, that as a tiny, poor country it has virtually no ability to absorb large numbers of refugees, particularly compared with the UK!
Sunak and the other cowardly UK Tory pols who cooked up and continue to defend this ludicrous scheme should go down in history as guilty of “crimes against humanity” — not to mention grotesque violations of common sense and human dignity.
Wanton cruelty, immorality, lies, intellectual dishonesty, scofflaw behavior from right wing politicos! Sound familiar? Always interesting how those who pontificate about “law and order” can’t abide by their own laws!
We are happy to announce that we will be doing occasional guest op-eds here at The Border Chronicle, and today is our first. You probably remember Brian Elmore, the emergency-medicine resident physician who did a Q&A with Melissa last month. In this op-ed he vividly describes what border deterrence does to a person’s flesh, and he makes an eloquent call for its end. After 30 years of this strategy, which has proved both deadly and harmful for people crossing the border, it is our honor to publish this reckoning and call for action, especially since we are entering an election year (it is now November, after all).
Brian is also the cofounder of Clínica Hope, a free clinic for migrants in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which he runs with the nonprofit Hope Border Institute.
And lastly, !Feliz Día de Muertos! Todd
****************
The Political Pathology of Border Deterrence: An Up-Close View of How This Policy Looks in the Emergency Room
“Deterrence won’t solve migration—it will only maim and mangle more men, women, and children. It will send more people to my emergency room. Some it will send to the morgue.”
. . . .
*********************
Read Dr. Elmore’s complete op-ed at the link.
So, exactly what makes “selling out” the legal, civil, and human rights of other persons a viable “strategy option” for Dem politicos, who certainly know better? See, e.g., https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/02/biden-ukraine-aid-deal-00125125. Sounds “pretty GOP” to me — selling rights that aren’t yours in the first place! See, e.g., Women’s Right to Choose & the “Forced Birth Movement!”
Dems shouldn’t believe that by abandoning asylum seekers and trashing both civil and human rights at the border they will gain any credit from the GOP or leverage from their xenophobic voters. They will just leave a trail of dead bodies and sow the seeds for the destruction of our democracy.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell LawMuzaffar Chishti Senior Fellow Migration Policy Institute PHOTO: MPI
The Migrant Surge: What’s Different About It This Time?
Please join us on November 7, 2023, from 12:15 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. in Myron Taylor Hall G85 of Cornell Law School for a lunchtime seminar given by our guest Muzaffar Chishti and moderated by Stephen Yale-Loehr.
Join Mr. Chishti and Professor Yale-Loehr as they discuss the history of recent migrant flows to the U.S. border, the current migrant surge at the border, the impact on cities and states beyond the border, and possible impacts on federal immigration policy.
Muzaffar Chishti is a Senior Fellow at the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and Director of MPI’s office at New York University School of Law. He received his LLM from Cornell Law School in 1975.
Steve Yale-Loehr teaches immigration and asylum law at Cornell Law School as Professor of Immigration Practice and is of counsel at Miller Mayer in Ithaca, New York.
Can’t make it to our event in-person? You can attend virtually!
The Title 42 farce instituted by Trump, under false pretenses, to unjustly suspend asylum laws has expired. But, the Biden Administration has come up with its own scofflaw regulations and policies intended to “meter” the flow of legal asylum seekers at ports of entry and to improperly “punish” those who exercise their legal rights by entering and turning themselves in to CBP. Biden’s BIA continues to churn out unrealistic hyper-technical asylum precedents (that actually fly in the face of precedents like Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi) and wrong, anti-asylum decisions intended to “deter and discourage” asylum seekers from applying and to make it unnecessarily difficult, frustrating, and time consuming for pro bono lawyers to represent them!
Contrary to the nativist myths, the U.S. does NOT bear the brunt of increased forced migration! Even in the Western Hemisphere, Colombia has many times more displaced Venezuelans than the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. experience, no matter how much it’s hyped or distorted by nativists and shallow media alarmists, is only a relatively modest slice of the pie. Over three quarters of the world’s forced migrants end up in low and middle income countries outside the U.S. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/global-trends-report-2022.pdf. Yet, you would never know that from listening to the apocalyptic narrative of GOP nativists and their Dem “fellow travelers!”
Years of cruelty, dehumanization, fortification, imprisonment, prosecution, endangerment, harsh laws, family separations, racist rhetoric, illegal turn backs, and summary deportations of asylum seekers in the U.S. and at the border have demonstrably, and quite predictably, failed to stop or materially deter forced migration stemming from causes outside of U.S. legal policies. Yet, most of our “dialogue” about the U.S. border and immigration start with the bogus assumption that closing the border and unilaterally suspending due process and domestic and international legal obligations will effectively create “Fortress America” where no migrant will dare to tread!
A real discussion of the border and migration must reject nativist myths, racist tropes, and media alarmism by starting with the truth. That is:
Human migration is a real and inevitable worldwide phenominon;
No one nation-state can unilaterally stop or prevent human migration;
Because of climate change and political instability in the world, forced migration is likely to increase in the foreseeable future;
Seeking asylum is a basic legal and human right;
The U.S. will have to accept more migrants, whether legally (preferable)or extralegally (the alternative).
Only by “ditching” and getting beyond nativist myths can we develop solutions that will deal realistically and humanely with human migration. I’m hoping that these two knowledgeable migration and legal experts can get us beyond the myths and to a discussion of practical, achievable actions!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
The fact remains that the U.S. government spent a lot of money to build new barriers to keep migrants out and did not get the result it wanted.
. . . .
Trump used a lot of hyperbole to promote his pet project and was prone to describe the barrier as the personification of his presidency. He took a keen interest in its aesthetic appearance and design features, often urging aides to make it look as imposing as possible. He told supporters his wall would be “impenetrable.” He also said Mexico would pay for it (Mexico did not).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials didn’t make such claims and weren’t surprised when criminal smuggling organizations in Mexico began sawing through the steel bars — using ordinary power tools — almost immediately.
The border wall has been hacked through thousands of times since then, so often that the government has had to deploy welding crews full-time to shore up the structural integrity of the barrier. Smugglers have figured out a cheaper and even easier way to defeat it, fashioning cheap, disposable ladders out of scrap wood or metal rebar. They send migrants and drug couriers up and over the top, then use ropes to lower them down the other side. Experienced fence-jumpers have developed a technique using the steel bars like fire poles, sliding down onto the U.S. side in seconds.
. . . .
Dozens of migrants have been killed and hospitalized after falling from the structure, often with horrific spinal trauma and broken legs. Immigrant advocates also say the barriers force migrants toward more remote desert areas, contributing to more deaths from heat stroke and exposure. CBP reported 568 migrant deaths along the border during the 2021 fiscal year, the most recent for which data is available — nearly twice the amount of the previous year.
The border wall has a devastating toll on animals too, advocates say. The steel bars have essentially cut in half the habitat of animal species, in some cases cutting off their access to water and grazing areas. Trail cameras set up by researchers have shown pumas, bobcats and other large mammals blocked and searching fruitlessly for some way to get through.
The expensive futility of the wall and border barriers might pale in comparison with the human damage to both migrants and our nation’s soul, according to this interview with border physicians by Melissa Del Bosque in The Border Chronicle:
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Dr. Brian Elmore is an emergency-medicine resident physician in El Paso, Texas. He’s also the cofounder of Clínica Hope, a free clinic for migrants in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which he runs with the nonprofit Hope Border Institute. Elmore frequently treats patients who have been injured by razor wire or fallen from the border wall that divides El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. He’s coined a term for these injuries: political pathologies. “These are normally healthy people, most of them young, who have been injured because of political decisions made thousands of miles away,” he says. “These are the political repercussions of the border.”
. . . .
That’s interesting that you use this term political pathologies. Is that a term you coined yourself?
It’s what I’ve started calling these injuries that otherwise healthy folks are receiving. These are mostly young people in their 20s, 30s, and sometimes kids, who out of sheer desperation decided to climb the wall or cross the river or desert. Other than for decisions that politicians made thousands of miles away to fortify the border, and make it as dangerous to cross as possible, they wouldn’t have these injuries. It’s really tragic.
. . . .
I’ve treated quite a few border wall falls. I’ve become used to this. But last week, I had a child who came in with multiple lacerations from barbed wire. She came in with her family, and they were all cut up from barbed wire. It’s jarring to see this, especially when it’s a kid, who’s innocent and has no idea what’s going on.
I started talking to the dad, and he told me they were from Venezuela. He said they’d heard a rumor in Ciudad Juárez that officials were letting Venezuelans cross outside of ports of entry. So a huge crowd showed up to present themselves to U.S. border officials [and ask for asylum]. Everyone became frustrated and irritated when they discovered that it wasn’t true.
And this family were pressed up against the barbed wire by the crowd, and they couldn’t go back. The only way for them to move was forward. So they started crawling under the barbed wire. This is the mother, father, the child, who is about 10, and an infant.
So, I’m stitching them up, making small talk because sewing up lacerations takes time and you’re face-to-face, and I’m talking to the dad and he lifts his shirt, and I see that he has a thoracotomy scar. When you perform a thoracotomy, it’s a last-ditch Hail Mary effort to save somebody’s life. The majority die after a thoracotomy. It’s when you crack open a chest because there’s either aortic bleeding or a penetrating injury to the heart. He told me he’d been stabbed and robbed in Caracas. And it was stunning to see his scar and to know that he’d survived. And the thing is, this is the second thoracotomy scar I’ve seen on a Venezuelan patient I’ve treated. This really reinforced for me the constant levels of violence people are facing. I feel like Americans have very little context for what’s going on in that country and how desperate things are there.
. . . .
There’s a very characteristic injury. It’s called a pilon fracture. It’s a lower-extremity kind of ankle fracture, very debilitating. And it’s often associated with a lumbar spinal fracture. Sometimes the bone has broken through the flesh and may require surgery. A lot of times they’ll be fitted with a device that keeps the bone in place while the swelling goes down, so they can get surgery. They’re then discharged to a migrant shelter in town while they wait for surgery.
. . . .
You see on the news, all these headlines, “migration crisis” and “invasion.” And that’s not what people in El Paso are experiencing or how they’re responding to it. They’re responding to the humanitarian crisis with compassion. You see people at shelters volunteering their time, offering to cook, and giving donations. I think the people of El Paso are amazing in the way they’ve responded. As opposed to how the rest of the country is just totally freaking out. I think El Paso is the most inspiring place to be and to practice.
*********************
You can read the full articles (and listen to Nick’s) at the above links.
Just think what could happen if we stopped “doubling down on failure,” eschewed dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers, and devoted some of the time, money, and effort we spend on dehumanization, militarization, and deterrence to building better systems for fairly and timely screening, identifying, and resettling refugees.
“Pie in the sky?” Hardly! Undoubtedly, these measures could be carried out far less expensively than further, ultimately fruitless, border militarization and enhanced cruelty being pushed by the GOP and some Dems. And, they would be more effective in bringing “law and order” to the border and our overall legal system.
Fanned by alarmist narratives being spread by folks like Adams and Hochul (no, Governor, 8 billion people aren’t going to descend on your state — in fact, the U.S. has a “refugee/1,000 population ratio” far below that of many smaller, much poorer countries), and the mainstream media’s insatiable need for a “trumped-up invasion narrative” to create headlines and sound bites, I suspect that the Administration and Dem politicos might be prepared to “throw asylum seekers under the bus” to reach an agreement with the GOP to keep the Government open. After all, asylum seekers don’t vote, and their advocates have historically been good “team players” who go to bat for the Dem Party despite having their contributions, energy, and ideas consistently undervalued, even dissed, once elections are over.
Don’t do it Dems!Giving in to the righty nativists will NOT solve anything, nor will abandoning values help you in the next election! Indeed, the Administration could set more “world records” for exclusions, deportations, denials, imprisonments, wall-building, enforcement hiring, “rocket dockets,” and the GOP would still spout the same “open borders” myth, and the media would give it equal, or greater, time. They largely ignore HRF and other experts who actually understand the border, migration, and have practical, humane, if less inflammatory or drastic, solutions to offer.
The mainstream media seems to have endless time for folks like Trump, Gaetz, Jordan, Haley, Ramaswamy, etc., who have little to contribute to solving pressing national problems. Why aren’t they talking to the folks who understand migration, asylum seekers, the border, and the legal framework? Why aren’t they “headlining” and publicizing reasonable, humane, values-based solutions rather than promoting narratives of doom, hopelessness, and expensive, often illegal, cruelty as the only “solutions?” There actually have been some bipartisan proposals for addressing the border while respecting and even enhancing the rights of asylum seekers. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/14/🇺🇸courtside-politics-rep-hillary-scholten-d-mi-is-part-of-a-bipartisan-group-of-new-house-members-reaching-across-the-aisle-in-an-attempt-to-govern-for-the-public-good/. But, you sure wouldn’t know it from listening to the so-called “mainstreamers!”
Here’s another fascinating thing. Humane, sensible, legally compliant, cost effective solutions to migration issues proposed by experts, many of whom are immersed in the reality on a daily basis, are often dismissed, if even mentioned, as “impractical,” “unrealistic,” “idealistic,” “costly.” On the other hand, when politicos, think tankers, reporters, commenters, profiteers, many largely removed from the human trauma of the border situation, present costly, proven to fail, draconian, often illegal measures directed against asylum seekers, the same prejorative, dismissive terms are seldom used.
Indeed, the worse, crueler, and more hare-brained a scheme is, the more likely it is to be mischaracterized as a “realistic response” to a hyped-up emergency! Somehow, wanton cruelty and end-running legal obligations are packaged as a “practical necessities,” while creative ideas on how to solve problems and make the current laws work are summarily brushed aside, often without meaningful analysis and discussion.
For six years, I have represented adults, children and families who have fled persecution in their home countries and sought protection in the United States. My clients have traveled thousands of miles from countries including Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cameroon, Togo, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. They leave their homes, communities and culture because the pain and risks of fleeing pale in comparison to the dangers they will face if they stay.
I have seen the difference between the outcomes for clients who have meaningful access to legal counsel and due process, who are able to safely settle into a community as they pursue their cases, and people who are deprived of these basic human rights. But over the past several months there has been an onslaught of Biden administration policies designed with one goal: to rapidly deport people. These programs block people from a fair asylum process, and I am deeply concerned that thousands of individuals fleeing persecution will never be able to tell their stories and have a chance at safety in our country.
For the clients I have helped win asylum, the key to my representation was consistent and thorough communication. Through multiple sessions, we built a rapport, I provided them with information about their legal rights and the immigration system and they provided me with the details of their lives. These details formed the basis of their legal claims, which I assisted them in presenting to the immigration judge. The judge decided whether they could stay in the United States based on an individualized determination of their future risk of harm if deported.
When one of my clients and her six-year-old daughter completed their two-month journey from El Salvador to Texas, Customs and Border Protection detained them for three days and then released them with notice of their obligation to appear in immigration court. They made their way to the Midwest, where they sought legal representation.
At the National Immigrant Justice Center, my colleagues and I worked with the mother over several months to document her experiences of being raped, impregnated, beaten and locked up at home by her older relative. Finally safe in the United States, she started therapy and began working at a restaurant to support herself and her daughter. At her final immigration court hearing, she bravely testified about her traumatic past, and the immigration judge granted both mother and daughter asylum.
. . . .
***************************
Read the rest of Stephanie’s article at the link.
On the basis of reports like this, there is reason to believe that not only should many more of the individuals allowed to enter the U.S. be granted asylum under a properly functioning system, but that many of those barred, rejected, and deported are erroneously being returned to life-threatening situations.
This, of course, directly contradicts the restrictionist myths peddled by most GOP politicos and even some Dems. It also contradicts the fear-mongering and scare tactics employed by the right-wing media that has unfortunately spilled over into the so-called “mainstream media.”
The real “border crisis/tragedy” is the lack of a legitimate, well-functioning, fair, efficient system to carry out our legal obligations to asylum seekers under both domestic and international laws. Calls for more “deterrents, cruelty, walls, harsh imprisonment, lawless deportations, and truncations of already-routinely-violated rights” are not going to solve the real problems! Indeed, they are likely to make things even worse!
Proud to be a member of this great group fighting for due process. Also grateful for all the great lawyers and firms who have provided pro bono drafting assistance to “give us a voice that needs to be heard!”
In Immigration Court, the number one “internal” problem has probably been aimless docket reshuffling, where cases are repeatedly re-arranged depending on the priorities of different administrations. Other problems include inefficient Master Calendar Hearings and pre-trial conferences, insufficient guidance from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which leads to inconsistent decision-making, and not enough staff members to support the Immigration Judges. In addition, there is a shortage of DHS attorneys (the prosecutors), and those attorneys have insufficient power (or willingness) to resolve cases or narrow contested issues prior to the final hearing.
What does all this mean for asylum seekers? In court, cases are still being heard, though I expect that delays will increase and more cases will be rescheduled. We can also expect that more non-priority cases (i.e., people who do not have criminal or security issues) will be dismissed based on prosecutorial discretion. At the Asylum Office, nothing seems to be moving. You can try to expedite your case and if that fails, file a writ of mandamus to force the agency to adjudicate your application. Otherwise, I would not expect any progress any time soon.
Finally, we might as well end on a positive note. Having recognized that most asylum applicants will be stuck waiting for years and years, the government has recently increased the validity period of asylum-pending work permits from two years to five years. For asylum applicants, this change will save money and reduce stress, and for USCIS, it will reduce their workload and allow them to focus on other applications. I guess the lesson here is that every cloud has a silver lining–even a mushroom cloud.
***************************
Read Jason’s full analysis at the link.
As Jason acknowledges, some of the drivers are “world events” over which — contrary to GOP and other nativist blather, often fanned by the so-called “mainstream media” — receiving countries like the U.S. have relatively little effective control. This is particularly true in the short run.
We’ve notoriously tried “taking over” countries in conflict. It never works! Moreover, it can eventually create additional refugee situations rather than resolving them. See, e.g., Afghanistan.
Nor are border barriers, razor wire, dungeons, arbitrary deportations, stripping asylum rights, xenophobic rhetoric, criminal prosecutions, killing some migrants by forcing ever more dangerous crossings, and a host of other unilateral measures pushed primarily by the GOP (but also by some Dems) going to change the actions of Maduro, Ortega, Putin, Diaz-Canel or any of the other authoritarian autocrats whose policies drive folks to flee their native lands and seek refuge abroad.
So, rather than wringing hands about what we can’t change, why not change that which is under our control? Long overdue, common-sense reforms and improvements in asylum adjudication, reception, and resettlement, some mentioned by Jason, could be achieved.
They won’t necessarily halt the flow of refugees, nor are they guaranteed to eliminate backlogs, particularly in the short run. But, they will reduce the backlogs, contribute mightily to a better U.S. legal system, and comply with our international and domestic legal obligations. That, in and of itself, appears to be a worthy and achievable goal. But, nobody in charge seems to be interested in anything but “quick fixes” — which aren’t really “fixes” at all, since they have all been tried and failed.
Immigrant Defenders help humanity at the border, treating fellow humans with dignity, respect, kindness. PHOTO: Linkedin
Immigrant Defenders posted this on LinkedIn:
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to inhumanely release asylum seekers onto San Diego streets, often with little more than the clothes on their backs. #TeamImmDef, Lindsay Toczylowski, Margaret Cargioli, Melissa Shepard and Jesús Contreras Barajas, continues to join various non-profit organizations, grassroots groups and community members to receive asylum seekers with respect and help them reach their friends and family members all over the United States. Our dedicated team, in collaboration with our remarkable San Diego-based partners, is tirelessly working to continue to welcome migrants with dignity. We have welcomed more than 8500 asylum seekers in 13 days.
We need all levels of government, local and federal, to provide infrastructure and financial resources to help NGOs welcome with dignity.
If you want to help, please consider donating airline miles to Miles4Migrants. Please see the link in our bio to donate. Or donate directly to ImmDef at Immdef.org/donate.
Scandalously, rather than looking to solve this humanitarian crisis, the GOP seeks to punish victims of Government dereliction of duty and their humanitarian responders for asserting well-established legal rights! Talk about a party of lawlessness! Sadly, it’s no surprise since they owe homage to an insurrectionist “leader” who is a notorious fraudster, con man, and criminal defendant in multiple cases!
While resisting the GOP’s worst racist/nativist nonsense, the Dems’ approach has been largely to avoid talking about immigration and human rights, apparently believing that pretending like they don’t exist will make them go away. But, migration isn’t going away!
While we can to some extent control, channel, and optimize migration, irresponsible “zero tolerance/uber deterrence” policies will do little to stop reality in the long run. It will, however, eventually force more migration underground and cede policy control to smugglers, cartels, and other criminals.
At the same time, obsessing over deterring and deporting those who merely seek refuge and a chance to contribute to America will actually diminish the harder work of focusing on criminals out to turn border disorder and misplaced priorities to their advantage.
Neither party appears to have a realistic plan for the border, and the GOP actively seeks to make things worse!Meanwhile, not for the first time, NGOs, local communities, and compassionate individuals are left to pick up the slack!
Recently, the San Diego County Board showed the potential for bipartisan cooperation on the border.
But, without a more realistic approach from the Feds — currently blocked by the GOP — local efforts are unlikely to succeed. And, that’s an avoidable humanitarian tragedy!
The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.
Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.
He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.
At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.
“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.
. . . .
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.
But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.
“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.
Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.
“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”
Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases.
John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.
. . . .
*******************
Read Julie’s complete article at the link.
Hazaras are an historically persecuted group in Afghanistan whose already perilous situation has demonstrably worsened under the Taliban. See, e.g., https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/urgent-action-needed-hazaras-in-afghanistan-under-attack. This case should have been a “slam dunk grant” under a proper application of precedents like Cardoza and Mogharrabi! Additionally, Hazara claims should be routinely grantable under the “pattern or practice of persecution” regulations that EOIR judges are supposed to apply (but seldom do).
No wonder this system builds incredible unnecessary backlogs when it botches the easy grants, wastes time on specious, disingenuous reasons for denial, and allows questionably-qualified judges to run roughshod over due process, the rule of law, and binding precedents.
Here’s additional commentary from “Sir Jeffrey:”
Thankfully, the amazing Steve Schulman at Akin Gump took on Mohamed’s case after his pro se hearing, and Human Rights First provided additional support.
(The Round Table was prepared to file an amicus brief on this one at the Fifth Circuit, but an agreement was reached to reopen the case at the IJ level before briefing was due.)
That the Government agreed to reopen this case basically “says it all” about the absurd result in the original hearing and the bogus “waiver” of appeal.
“The question before us is whether the BIA’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As will be explained below, the BIA’s rationale does not allow us to make that determination. So we grant Lin’s petition and remand for further proceedings. … It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person in Lin’s position, under the circumstances demonstrated in the record, would feel safe returning home. The determination that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China is contravened by the record and compels us to conclude otherwise. … [H]ere, where we are left with no indication that the BIA undertook the appropriate inquiry and significant indications that it likely did not, remand for full consideration is proper.”
PWS: “Another “Big Whiff” by the BIA! Sounds like assembly line denials to me!”
HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: “Whether a reasonable person returning home would feel safe – the correct standard cited by the circuit, is rarely if ever applied by the current BIA. I would really love to see the IJ training material on this standard.”
This is life or death folks! Why isn’t getting it right at the “retail level” an urgent mission for the Government?
