"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.
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel was unanimously reelected on Friday for another term. Her message to the party: “I am mad and I’m not going to let socialism rule this country.”
. . . .
Newsflash: It wasn’t the radical left that stormed the doors of the Capitol on Wednesday. It wasn’t the radical left that told a group of known white nationalists to “stand by” during a nationally televised presidential debate. It wasn’t the radical left that addressed the soon-to-be rioters and declared to members of Congress that “we’re coming for you.” It wasn’t the radical left who on the eve of the Capitol siege announced their plans to walk the path to sedition.
The only “radical” elements America sees now are the words and actions of the Republican Party. Yet Republicans have forever gotten away with throwing around the label “radical” to characterize the Democratic Party.
How many times in political ads have Republicans used the words “radical” and “dangerous” to describe their Democratic challengers? How many Fox News segments have Sean Hannity and friends devoted to the Democrats’ “radical extreme socialist agenda”?
What happened on Wednesday was an inevitable culmination of years of extreme and alarmist rhetoric from the Republican Party and their propaganda platforms. Watching Republicans act shocked that the people they have relentlessly and unapologetically pandered to for years is appalling.
With every tweet, every soundbite, every campaign ad, Republicans have been signaling to their supporters that it’s time to take matters in their hands. When you label something as “radical” or “extreme” or “dangerous,” you are telling people they need to defend themselves against a threat. You are telling them they need to be ready to fight. You are telling them their impulse to resort to violence and destruction is justified and righteous.
There is absolutely nothing radical or extreme about protesting racial inequality, social injustice and a culture of police brutality in America. There is nothing radical or extreme about speaking out for gender equality and women’s rights. There is nothing radical or extreme about advocating for universal healthcare coverage. There is nothing radical or extreme about supporting action to address the growing threat of climate change. There is nothing radical or extreme about wanting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. There is nothing radical or extreme about embracing the need for gun reform in the wake of mass shootings. There is nothing radical or extreme about wearing a mask and social distancing amid a global pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 365,000 Americans.
The extremists are the ones who egged on the insurrectionists with four years of lies. Republicans may be abandoning the sinking Trump ship, but don’t let this 11th-hour maneuver fool you. That even after Wednesday’s events Republicans in Congress and in the media are still clinging to the “radical socialist agenda” narrative shows they haven’t changed — though they are scurrying to launder their tattered reputations.
Don’t believe me?
Just watch how many of them will vote to support articles of impeachment if the Democrats bring those to the House floor next week.
Kurt Bardella is a senior advisor to The Lincoln Project. He is a former aide to California Republican Congressmen Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray and was an aide in the California State Senate and Assembly. @KurtBardella
*****************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
The opposition to be sure! “Loyal” — no way! The “Party of Treason” — the GOP — is exactly what its lies, vile rhetoric, lack of values, and insurrectionist actions tell us it is — the gravest existential threat to our nation and our national security since the Confederacy of Traitors.
Beware and be prepared for their continuing assaults on our democracy, our nation, truth, and humanity!
I’m angry, too, Ronna, about your lies, false narratives, and scurrilous attacks on my country! I’ll do everything possible to insure that your party of cowardice, immorality, treason, disloyalty, studied stupidity, racism, and insurrection is removed from political power at every level of our democracy. Clearly, American democracy and equal justice under law are “radical” concepts to you, Cotton, and rest of your party of lying, cowardly Putinist puppets and traitors!
Three resettlement agencies responsible for sponsoring refugees challenged the new policy. The agencies work with the State Department to welcome adults and children who have fled war and persecution in other countries. They connect refugees to housing, jobs and English classes needed to start their new lives in the United States.
Melanie Nezer, a senior vice president of the Silver Spring, Md.-based HIAS, one of the agencies behind the lawsuit, applauded the court’s decision.
“Especially right now, at this moment in history, it is really affirming and validating to see the court affirm the importance of the program,” Nezer said Friday.
“It will take a lot of work to rebuild a system that the Trump administration has broken down over the last four years,” she said.
[Maryland governor issues written consent for refugee admissions in response to Trump order]
Trump issued the order after he set the annual national refugee cap for fiscal 2020 at a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 in 2016.
Texas was the first state to publicly refuse to resettle new refugees, with Gov. Greg Abbott (R) saying the state has “carried more than its share.” The vast majority of other governors, however, signed letters saying they would accept refugees.
Nezer said the incoming Biden administration has committed to admitting refugees at levels more in line with historical figures.
A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[Federal judge temporarily halts Trump administration policy allowing local governments to block refugees]
The appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte, who concluded that the requirement gave state and local governments veto power that he said is “arbitrary and capricious as well as inherently susceptible to hidden bias.”
The 4th Circuit agreed. The policy, the court said, would also impose an “extreme burden” on the nonprofit agencies required to obtain consent from local officials. The court warned that the policy would erode community relationships and was likely to result in the closure of some offices.
“The record is clear that the resettlement agencies were not designed for this role and have been forced to divert enormous resources from their core social service missions to their new lobbying responsibilities,” according to the 4th Circuit.
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland.
******************
Read the rest of Ann’s article at the link.
The 4th Circuit comes through for America! The court pointed out the malicious stupidity of the regime’s policy that dismantled and wasted the resources of the NGOs who conduct refugee resettlement, one of the most effective and beneficial programs in America. White Nationalism is a vile, anti-American perversion that “deconstructs” success and leaves chaos, suffering, and squandered resources in its wake.
To state the obvious, under sane, humane, effective government, the resources wasted in opposing, “defending,” and litigating this atrocious and unnecessary nonsense could better have been devoted to resettling more refugees! I’m confident that the Biden Administration will reinstitute a robust refugee program.
Additionally, I have proposed that the type of cooperation, expertise, and organization that has succeeded in refugee resettlement could be applied creatively to screening, obtaining representation, adjudicating, and resettling asylum seekers and those granted asylum. The Biden Administration should build on and expand things that work, particularly public private partnerships and grants to NGOs and state and local governments.
They must stop squandering money and resources on racist, “built to fail” enforcement gimmicks and unconstitutional, unnecessary, inhumane, expensive, and immoral detention! “Repurpose” the funds wasted on the “stunt wall” and devote them to getting asylum seekers processed in a fair, humane, and timely manner that complies with due process and our statutory and international obligations.
Greg Abbott is another sleazy White Nationalist who should be removed from office for lies, false narratives, religious bias, and overt racism.
The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs
On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.
Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.
But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.
The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.
The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”
However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.
No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.
In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.
The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.
Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6
Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7
A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8
In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.
The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.
There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?
These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”
The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.
Notes:
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).
See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).
Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).
Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).
Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).
Id. at 203-204.
If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*********************
Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.
But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers?While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!
Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.
Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:
Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”
“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”
In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution
Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.
These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.
Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees.Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”
As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.
Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.
Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.
Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!
Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective andfeckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!
Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under licenseAmanda Holpuch Reporter The Guardian
Erika Pinheiro, Litigation & Policy Director, Al Otro Lado, speaks at TEDSalon: Border Stories, September 10, 2019 at the TED World Theater, New York, NY Photo: Ryan Lash / TED, Creative Commons License
Amanda Holpuch reports from the Gulag for HuffPost:
. . . .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bars asylum seekers and refugees from the US under an order called Title 42. People who attempt to cross the border are returned, or expelled, back to Mexico, without an opportunity to test their asylum claims. More than 250,000 migrants processed at the US-Mexico border between March and October were expelled, according to US Customs and Border Protection data.
The situation is dire. Thousands of asylum-seekers are stuck at the border, uncertain when they will be able to file their claims. The camps they wait in are an even greater public health risk that before.
Outside the border, Al Otro Lado has fought for detained migrants to get PPE and medical releases. Prisons are one of the worst possible places to be when there is a contagious disease and deaths in the custody of US immigration authorities have increased dramatically this year. They have also provided supplies to homeless migrants in southern California who have been shut out of public hygiene facilities.
Pinheiro said there will be improvements with Trump out of office, but some of the Biden campaign promises to address asylum issues at the border will be toothless until the CDC order is revoked. It’s a point she plans to make in conversations with the transition team.
A prime concern for advocates about the Biden administration is that it will include some of the same people from Barack Obama’s administration, which had more deportations than any other president and laid the groundwork for some controversial Trump policies.
While it is a worry for Pinheiro, she has hope that the new administration will build something better. “I would hope a lot of those people, and I know for some of them, have been able to reflect on how the systems they built were weaponized by Trump to do things like family separation or detaining children,” she said.
Family separation, which has left 545 children still waiting to be reunited with their parents, was a crucial issue for many voters and Pinheiro hopes that energy translates to other immigration policies.
“How did you feel when your government committed the atrocity of family separation in your name?” Pinheiro said. “The next step is really understanding that similar and sometimes worse atrocities are still being committed in the name of border security and limiting migration.”
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
I totally agree with Erika Pinheiro that there is no excuse for the continuing violations of our Constitution, statutes, international obligations, and simple human decency. The regime’s policies are nothing more than “crimes against humanity” thinly disguised as “law enforcement,” “national security,” and “public health” (from a regime whose “malicious incompetence,” cruelty, and callous intentional undermining of medical advice during the pandemic have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans).
Even more disgracefully, the Supremes and other Federal Courts have failed in their Constitutional duty to stand up to the abusers and hold the regime’s scofflaw “leaders” (to where, one might ask?) accountable. What’s the purpose of life-tenured judges who lack the training, wisdom, ethics, and most of all courage to enforce the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable against lawless, dishonest, and fundamentally cowardly “Executive bullies” hiding behind their official positions? Not much, in my view! There are deep problems in all three branches of our badly compromised and ailing Government!
I have also spoken out on Courtsideagainst the dangers of putting the same failed Dem politicos who thoroughly screwed up immigration policy, and particularly the Immigration Courts, back in charge again. I agree with Erika’s hope that some of them have gained wisdom and perspective in the last four years. But, why rely on the hope that those who failed in the past have suddenly gotten smarter, when there are “better alternatives” out there ready to step in and solve the problems?
Why not put in place some talented new faces from the NDPA with better, more progressive ideas, tons of dynamic energy, and the demonstrated willingness and courage to stand tall against bureaucratic tyranny? Give them a chance to solve the problems! Erika looks like one of those who should be solving problems and implementing better immigration policies “from the inside” in the Biden-Harris Administration!
The “deterrence only paradigm” that has driven our border enforcement policies over the past half century has been a demonstrable failure, both in terms of law enforcement and the unnecessary and unjustifiable human carnage that it has caused. Why keep doing variations on discredited policies and expecting better results?
We know that ugly, racist rhetoric, jailing families and kids in punitive conditions, weaponizing courts as enforcement tools, suspending the rule of law, denying hearings, and even summarily, illegally, and immorally returning asylum seekers to death won’t stop folks from fleeing unbearable conditions in their native countries! They will continue to seek protection in America, even in the face of predictable abuses, life-threatening dangers, and little chance of success in a system intentionally “gamed” to mistreat and reject them while denying their humanity.
Desperate people do desperate things. They will continue to do them even in the face of inhuman abuses inflicted by those whose better fortunes in life have not been accompanied by any particular compassion, understanding of the predicament of others, or recognition of an obligation to abjure the power to bully and torment those less fortunate in favor of addressing their situations in a fair, reasonable, and humane manner.
Human migration is far older than nation states, zero tolerance, baby jails, family incarceration, biased judging, national selfishness disguised as “patriotism,” and border walls. It has outlasted and outflanked all of the vain attempts to artificially suppress it by force and gimmicks. It’s time for some policies that recognize reality, see its benefits, and work with the flow rather than futilely in opposition to it.
It’s past time to look beyond the failures of yesterday to progressive solutions and new leadership committed to solving problems while enhancing justice, respecting human dignity, and enhancing human rights (which, in the end, are all of our rights)!
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
************************
Thanks to our friends Steve Schulman 😇 and Michael Stortz 😇 at Akin Gump for their truly outstanding pro bono assistance on this brief.Couldn’t do it without you!😎
Such an honor to be “fighting the good fight” for due process and fundamental fairness with my colleagues on the Round Table🛡⚔️👩⚖️🧑🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️. We have made a difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us. 🗽We have also helped educate the Federal Courts and the public on the ugly realities of our failed, unjust, and totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” ☠️🤡🦹🏿♂️, modern day “Star Chambers” ☠️⚰️😪that have become weaponized appendages of “White Nationalist 🤮🏴☠️⚰️👎🏻 nation.”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
Happy New Year! 🍾🥂🎉Looking forward to Jan. 20 and the end of the kakistocracy!👍🏼⚖️🗽😎🇺🇸
President-elect Biden has promised a broad array of reforms that would impact refugees, asylum seekers, and other forced migrants. He has indicated he will restore Temporary Protected Status, place a moratorium on deportations, and end prolonged detention and for-profit detention centers. These are all crucially important to the safety and security of migrants and their families in the United States and other countries, especially in the Western Hemisphere. President-elect Biden has also promised to end the Trump administration’s policy of making asylum seekers “remain in Mexico” while awaiting hearings in U.S. immigration court.
However, in recent weeks, a flawed and fatalistic view of migration to the U.S. southern border has taken hold in some media accounts and reports. It goes like this: President Trump’s Remain in Mexico (or MPP) policy has created a logistical and humanitarian crisis at the southern U.S. border that, despite President-elect Biden’s promises, will be very difficult to undo. Further, a combination of pull and push factors (especially in the wake of hurricanes in Central America) will lead to increased migration to the southern U.S. border this spring such that President-elect Biden will have little choice but to keep the border sealed under an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as he attempts to deal with COVID-19 in border states and fulfill other immigration policy promises—including uniting families the Trump administration ripped apart two years ago.
There are several problems with this line of argument, many of which are addressed in this report. Most fundamentally, keeping the border sealed and migrants waiting in Mexico will perpetuate serious abuses. Family separations and other violations of human rights, as well as violations of U.S. law, will continue to occur under a Biden administration that does not implement new policies at the border. Recently, MPP and the CDC border closure have exacerbated smuggling and trafficking at the border, as well as other forms of abuse against migrants. For example, the CDC order has led to the repatriation of Nicaraguan dissidents as well as the return of a sexually abused Guatemalan child. It has also led asylum seekers to try to cross undetected in remote desert areas. Further, unwinding MPP and allowing asylum seekers to ask for protection at the border is not only the right thing to do, but also feasible with the proper planning. Indeed, it presents the incoming administration with an opportunity to rethink migration management, especially for those seeking asylum, and to implement a new screening process that is both more humane and more efficient.
President-elect Biden has invoked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—healer, rebuilder, and practical problem solver—as a model. During World War II, Roosevelt planned and devoted significant resources to resolving the largest displacement crisis the world had ever known. This planning was part of an effort to ensure that what happened in 1939 to the S.S. St. Louis—a ship of asylum-seeking Jews turned away by the United States and other countries—would not occur again.
During his first week in office, President-elect Biden should issue an executive order on border asylum policy that departs dramatically from that which President Trump put forth during his first week. President Biden’s executive order should give asylum seekers access to the border and provide for cooperation with border states and shelters to safely and humanely receive asylum seekers. It should allocate resources to alternatives to detention, including case management, and to improved adjudication of asylum claims in immigration courts, especially through provision of legal services. It should also commit to ending practices associated with expedited removal of asylum seekers that have resulted in abuses, and to the use of parole to unwind MPP. Finally, through revocation of Trump administration decisions, regulations, and policies, as well as through settlement of lawsuits and the withdrawal of appeals to federal courts regarding these policies, the executive order should commit to restoring asylum eligibility to those who have fled persecution but have been denied or prevented from obtaining protection.
In taking such action, President-elect Biden would be fulfilling not only his campaign promises but the commitment he made when he voted for Senate passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. That law, supported by large majorities of both parties, promised to ensure fair access to asylum at the border.
This report shows why it is imperative that the Biden administration do this rather than keep us mired in a policy framework that does not work and that has led to a cycle of crises. It does so by looking back to a momentous time of transition about thirty years ago. With the Cold War ending, the United States had to rethink its assumptions about who merited refugee status. Only a handful of refugee resettlement slots in the U.S. Refugee Program were allotted to Central Americans, and the United States had not yet developed clear procedures for effectively handling asylum seekers at the southwestern border. Rather than acknowledge the forces pushing people northward, U.S. policymakers adopted a paradigm that was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on deterrence. This is a paradigm that we are still in today.
At different points over the past thirty years, humanitarian and constructive policies have tempered the harshness of this paradigm, and such policies have also brought benefits in terms of cost and efficiency. These policies need to be adapted and scaled up. But they also need to be placed within a welcoming framework that does not presume asylum seekers are a threat. Instead of devoting tremendous resources to a futile and rights-violating attempt to block those already on the move, we have to try to better understand the drivers of migration, which, for Central Americans, include corruption, poverty, insecurity, and violence.We must devote resources instead to humanely receiving asylum seekers and adjudicating their claims fairly. We also have to stop assuming that the best place to manage admissions of all Central Americans seeking protection is at the border.
The Deterrence Paradigm
The deterrence paradigm has been implemented repeatedly using the same counterproductive strategies.
. . . .
*************
Read the rear of Yael’s article at the link.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼⚖️🗽🇺🇸
Folks like my Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf and I have been “preaching” for an abandonment of the unlawful, inhumane, incredibly wasteful, and demonstrably ineffective “deterrence paradigm.”
The skill set to establish a lawful, better, humane, efficient asylum system, consistent with our Constitutional, statutory, and international obligations is out there, mainly in the private/NGO/academic communities. I/O/W the “practical scholars, litigators, and advocates” in the NDPA.
It’s a just a question of the incoming Biden/Harris Administration getting beyond the “enforcement only” mentality, personnel, and White Nationalist nativist thinking that currently infects the entire USG immigration bureaucracy, at all levels. Replace the current failed leadership with experts from the NDPA and empower them to work with other experts in the private sector to institute a better system that would be no more costly, likely less, than the current “built to fail” abominations that not only waste resources but destroy human lives and are an ugly stain on our national conscience!
I also appreciate Yael’s recognition of the pressing and compelling need to “end the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️@ EOIR:”
Immigration Court Reform
EOIR policies during the Trump administration have been at odds with principles of due process and judicial independence. These include the imposition of numeric case completion quotas and docket management policies that deprive asylum seekers of procedural protections; appointment of judges who almost exclusively come from prosecutorial backgrounds (especially working at DHS and in law enforcement); promotion to permanent positions on an expanded BIA of judges with asylum denial rates much higher than the national average; and procedures that limit the ability of claimants to effectively appeal their cases. The Biden administration should conduct an urgent review of EOIR hiring practices and immigration court procedures and develop recommendations for regulatory or structural changes consistent with the protection needs of asylum seekers.
The critical “urgent review” should be done by a “Team of Experts from the NDPA” brought in on an immediate temporary basis, if necessary, in accordance with Federal Personnel Rules, to replace the current Senior “Management” @ EOIR as well as the entire BIA. There’s no better way to fix the system than to take over management, restore fairness and order, and get inside the current disastrous mess @ the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️! Importantly, the “Team of Experts” with effective operational control could immediately begin fixing (and conversely stop aggravating and creating) the glaring problems while putting the structure and personnel in place for long-term reforms.
Lives ☠️⚰️ are at stake here! We need ACTION, not merely study and evaluation. “Fixing the system on the fly” may be challenging, but it’s perfectly within the capabilities of the right team of NDPA experts! Dems often prefer study and dialogue to effective actions. As Toby Keith would say: We need “a little less talk and a lot more action.”
Thanks to our leading “Warrior Queen” Ilyce and her team of knightesses and knights who took the lead on this phase of the never ending battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.”
I trust that it will take more than another pathetic “Alternative Fact Sheet” 🤥 to save the sorry bunch @ “EOIR’s Clown Tower”🤡🦹🏿♂️ in Falls Church from accountability for their sycophancy, false narratives, and constant assaults on due process, the rule of law, truth, and human decency. 👎🏻🏴☠️☠️⚰️🤮 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Indicative and very telling that as justice further deteriorates, backlogs mushroom, productivity drops, public outrage grows, chaos reigns, (already rock bottom) morale plummets, and vulnerable humans suffer, the “malicious incompetents” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR spend time and public resources on this nonsense!
There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America without “radical due process reform” that ends forever the disgraceful “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (particularly migrants of color, women, families, and, most disgustingly, children) by the EOIR Clown Courts!🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ To paraphrase Rev. King, “Injustice to one is injustice to all.”
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴☠️
Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.
The message? A president can obstruct special counsels’ investigations of his wrongdoing, push foreign officials to dig up dirt on political rivals, fire inspectors general who find corruption, order the entire executive branch to refuse congressional subpoenas, flood the Internet with fake information about his opponents, refuse to release his tax returns, accuse the press of being “fake media” and “enemies of the people”, and make money off his presidency.
And he can get away with it. Almost half of the electorate will even vote for his reelection.
A president can also lie about the results of an election without a shred of evidence – and yet, according to polls, be believed by the vast majority of those who voted for him.
Trump’s recent pardons have broken double-pane windows.
Not only has he shattered the norm for presidential pardons – usually granted because of a petitioner’s good conduct after conviction and service of sentence – but he’s pardoned people who themselves shattered windows. By pardoning them, he has rendered them unaccountable for their acts.
They include aides convicted of lying to the FBI and threatening potential witnesses in order to protect him; his son-in-law’s father, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, illegal campaign contributions, and lying to the Federal Election Commission; Blackwater security guards convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians, including women and children; Border Patrol agents convicted of assaulting or shooting unarmed suspects; and Republican lawmakers and their aides found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.
It’s not simply the size of the broken window that undermines standards, according to Wilson and Kelling. It’s the willingness of society to look the other way. If no one is held accountable, norms collapse.
Trump may face a barrage of lawsuits when he leaves office, possibly including criminal charges. But it’s unlikely he’ll go to jail. Presidential immunity or a self-pardon will protect him. Prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly argue against indictment, in any event. No former president has ever been convicted of a crime. The mere possibility of a criminal trial for Trump would ignite a partisan brawl across the nation.
Congress may try to limit the power of future presidents – strengthening congressional oversight, fortifying the independence of inspectors general, demanding more financial disclosure, increasing penalties on presidential aides who break laws, restricting the pardon process, and so on.
But Congress – a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution – cannot rein in rogue presidents. And the courts don’t want to weigh in on political questions.
The appalling reality is that Trump may get away with it. And in getting away with it he will have changed and degraded the norms governing American presidents. The giant windows he’s broken are invitations to a future president to break even more.
Nothing will correct this unless or until an overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and condemn what has occurred.
****************
Read Reich’s full article at the link.
As I have mentioned, the lack of accountability could be a problem for the Biden-Harris Administration. And, 74 million voters who pulled the lever for an overtly corrupt, anti-American, racist, clown is an even bigger obstacle to the future of our nation.
On the other hand, although he was a “minority President” from the git go, Trump had nothing but contempt for the majority of us who didn’t favor his maliciously incompetent and divisive policies; he completely disregarded both truth and the common good.
Biden and Harris start with something that Trump never had — the support of a clear majority of 7 million plus voters. So, if they govern wisely, humanely, and in the public interest they could succeed in saving our nation from the 74 million who joined Trump’s war against American democracy. And despite their short-signtedness and intransigence, the 74 million and their families in Trumpland will get the benefits of better government in the public interest. Sometimes, you have to save folks in spite of themselves.
If the policies of decency, honesty, courage, and governing in the public interest work, it could create a longer-term governing majority. If not, it will still be worth a shot at saving our democracy. Another Administration of Trump and his minority minions would be the end of our democracy anyway —the majority of us have little to lose by giving it our best shot with the Biden Harris Team!
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawBlaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Groups Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”
The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.
For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.
“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.
The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.
The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiplecourts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.
*****************
Speeding up executions, killing and torturing the most vulnerable humans, denying COVID relief to desperate Americans, issuing corrupt pardons to murderers, fraudsters, cronies, and dishonest politicos, plotting treason against the USG — that’s how the regime and its sycophants have spent their waning days.
Despite the obvious desire to move on and avoid dealing with the crimes and overt corruption of the defeated regime, it will be difficult for the Biden-Harris Administration to avoid questions of accountability for the worst President, worst regime, and worst major party in U.S. history. Honestly coming to grips with the past is often a prerequisite for a better future.
As our eyes fall upon the familiar manger scenes scattered throughout our churches and homes this Christmas season, it is hard not to think about the millions of people from that same manger land who are seeking refuge from terror and oppression now 2,000 years later.
Where will they go? Who will give them shelter?
As Oliver Willis with Media Matters tweeted: “if only we had a seasonally appropriate story about middle eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless.”
This less-than-140-character comment has inspired thousands of words in response, many of them from conservative Christians attacking Willis for committing a grave offense against the Christmas story. “Christmas is about Christ,” they insist, “not Syrian refugees. The holy family was simply returning to Bethlehem for a census.” Factually, these critics are right. But they miss the much larger point of the
The Christmas story is not about a refugee family, but it is about a family seeking refuge. Ordered by an occupying government to travel by foot for days on end so that Caesar Augustus could count the number of people under his order, an expectant mother at the peak of her pregnancy is forced to undergo the single most dangerous experience of a first-century woman’s life not at home, but away in a manger.
It was a fiercely political environment through which they wandered. Why should we pretend like it wasn’t?
. . . .
I believe the Christmas story should open our eyes and our hearts to those most vulnerable in our midst. To those whose only hope is to travel by foot and inflatable raft for days in search of a livable life—many of whom look very much like the Middle Eastern Mary, Jesus’ mother.
. . . .
When Jesus is asked how one inherits eternal life, he responds with the story of the Good Samaritan. The most startling part of the story is that in Jesus’ time Samaritans were perceived similarly to American Muslims today.
Imagine the Pope, when asked how one gets into heaven, answering with a story about a young Muslim from Syria. This is the story Jesus tells.
Jesus tells us to welcome the stranger, to feed the hungry, to go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus asks that we treat all of humanity with the same love, kindness and generosity that he modeled throughout his life.
The Christmas story reminds us of a family struggling under the yoke of an oppressive regime. Of a God who became human to take on our struggles and strife and to embody divine love, whose light shines on all. As he tells us, whatever we have done for the least among us we have done to him.
As followers of Jesus we are called to welcome the strangers of our time. To return the care shown by the Good Samaritan to today’s marginalized communities. And to open our hearts and our doors to those seeking refuge this Christmas season, whatever their religion.
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
Rev. Jones’s words are as true today, even in the middle of a pandemic, as they were in 2015 when she wrote them.
According to this specious reasoning, that justifies an indefinite extension of the current regime’s cruel, bogus, and illegal refugee bans, including “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” by the new Administration while it “cautiously figures things out” (something the Obama Administration never managed to do over eight painful years of botched asylum policies). I call BS! In this situation, every day of unnecessary delay in ending the regime’s racist policies endangers human lives and mocks our claim to be a “nation of laws.”
I repeat the words of my Round Table friend & colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf, a man who has first-had experience with refugees at all levels of our system and who, unlike the Editorial Board and the nativists, has “walked the walk and talked the talk:”
In the early days of this administration there was much hype over the “migrant caravans” composed mostly of Central Americans from the “northern triangle” countries, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, that were “invading” our country — the old “barbarian hordes” trope that is a favorite of every totalitarian regime. In fact the numbers of each such “caravan” for the most part would easily fit inside a typical college stadium. (Current demographics demonstrate that even if we admitted all of them as potential workers and residents, the U.S. would still experience labor shortfalls in the near future and they would not supplant the decline of our native-born population.)
Hon. Paul Grussendorf U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member, Round Table of Former IJs Author Source: Amazon.com
Judge Grussendorf has forgotten more about asylum and refugee law and practice, and the humanity they serve, than the Editorial Board or the nativist alarmists (“modern day chicken🐥 littles”) they mimic will ever know.
We’ve survived four years of a maliciously incompetent regime that thrives on disorder, lies, corruption, promoting human misery, inequality, racism, and has intentionally sought to undermine our democracy. Refugees actually bring to the table hope, courage, skills, self-sacrifice, values, and the same ideals on which our country was founded. Indeed, “saving ourselves by saving others” was the theme of one of my first post-retirement essays in 2016. https://immigrationcourtside.com/saving-child-migrants-while-saving-ourselves/
We actually have both the legal tools and the professional expertise readily available to treat asylum seekers and other migrants fairly. The last two Administrations have basically either failed to use existing mechanisms properly or, as in the case of the regime, actively worked to disassemble that which works.
Reversing these disgraceful trends isn’t rocket science. We can institute and apply the correct legal standards in a fair and reasonable manner. There are loads of folks out there, many in them in the private or NGO sector, who know how to work with refugees, make fair determinations, resettle those who qualify, and institute humane alternatives for those who don’t fit within our current system. Since the regime trashed our international humanitarian obligations, many trained refugee and humanitarian professionals are more than ready to resume using their skills and expertise in refugee matters that was so stupidly, immorally, and improperly “shelved” by the regime.
It might not happen on January 21, 2021, but it could and should happen within a short time thereafter with the right folks in change and a concerted effort on the part of the Biden-Harris Administration to put them in place where they can solve the problems. Getting our asylum, refugee, and Immigration Court systems functioning needs to be a national priority of the highest order, right after COVID relief and economic help! It’s a critical part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s overriding commitment to racial and social justice!
Not surprisingly, refugee crises and the need for a strong, competent, lawful response seldom, if ever, come upon us in “in the best of times” when we are completely prepared. Refugee crises almost always come to a head during times of war, natural disaster, famine, revolution, or worldwide economic depression and disorder. The UN Refugee Convention sprung from the aftermath of WW II and Cold War, hardly stable times in history.
We can and must make carrying through on our legal and humanitarian obligations to the most vulnerable humans in the world, even in difficult and challenging times, part of our obligation to “show Christ-like love in word and deed” regardless of our religious affiliation, if any.
Christ never asked his followers to do what was easy, profitable, ego-satisfying, or non-threatening — he asked others to follow him in unselfishly taking risk, believing in a better world to come, and “putting it all on the line” for humanity. Those are noble principles that all should be able to agree and act upon.
Jacob Soboroff NBC Correspondent Jacob Soboroff at the ABC News Democratic Debate National Constitution Center. Philadelphia, PA. Creative Commons License
Jacob Soboroff reports for NBC News:
Inside the effort to provide mental health care to migrant families
SHARE THIS –
COPIED
Seneca Family of Agencies provides mental health care to migrant families separated by the Trump administration. NBC News’ Jacob Soboroff reports on the obstacles faced by the nonprofit in locating families.
Jacob and his terrific NBC News colleague Julia Edwards Ainsley have been at the forefront of exposing the irreparable human carnage and lasting trauma caused by the regime’s unlawful, racist, White Nationalist immigration policies (some of which were unconscionably “greenlighted” by an immoral and irresponsible Supremes GOP majority that views themselves and their rotten to the core, inhumane, right-wing ideology as above the needless human suffering they further and encourage).
The “perps” like,”Gonzo” Sessions, Grauleiter Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan, Noel Francisco, Rod Rosenstein, et al, walk free while the victims continue to suffer and others, like the Christ-like folks at Seneca Family of Agencies, are left to pick up the pieces! How is this “justice?”
Our national policies have truly abandoned Christ’s values of self-sacrifice, mercy, generosity in spirit and deed, courage in the face of oppression, human compassion, justice, and assistance for the most vulnerable among us under the perverted and immoral “leadership” of a man and his party without humane values or respect for truth who stand for absolutely nothing that is decent in the world.
As Americans suffer and die from the pandemic he mocked, downplayed, and mishandled; unemployed Americans are dissed and shortchanged by his party of underachieving, out of touch fat cats, liars, cowards, and truth deniers; asylum seekers needlessly suffer in squalid camps in Mexico; refugees scorned, unlawfully and immorally abandoned and abused by the world’s richest country face persecution, torture, despair, and death; and non-criminals rot in DHS’s “New American Gulag,” the immoral Grifter-in-Chief lives it up at taxpayer expense for one last Christmas at his Florida resort; fumes about a fair and square election that he lost big time; savors a rash of holiday executions; delays bipartisan COVID relief; ferments treason against our republic; and pardons a wide range of scumbags, felons, war criminals, family members, cronies, fraudsters, and other totally undeserving characters.
But, there is hope for our world at Christmas: 27 days and counting to the end of the kakistocracy, expulsion of the unqualified con-man and his motley crew of criminals and cronies, and the ascension of a real President and Vice President, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to lead us, and perhaps our world, out of the current mess to a kinder, brighter future. That might be the best present of all this Christmas.
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule
1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law
2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.
“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”
Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.
Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”
The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.
The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”
Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.
Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’
*******************
Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC reports:
Court Grants Class Certification and Amends Preliminary Injunction in USCIS UC Asylum Jurisdiction Litigation
On December 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19:1944, a lawsuit challenging a May 31, 2019 USCIS policy limiting USCIS asylum jurisdiction over applicants previously determined to be “unaccompanied alien children.” The court certified the following class:
“All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child (“UAC”); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merits.”
Simultaneously, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS’s deference to EOIR jurisdictional determinations and to prevent ICE’s advocacy against USCIS initial jurisdiction. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend the preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS from rejecting jurisdiction based on its expansion of the “affirmative act” exception from the 2013 Kim Memo, instead granting Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to encompass this claim. Please see CLINIC’s litigation webpage for the court’s December 21, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, as well as other case-related documents.
As amended, the preliminary injunction has the following components:
It enjoins USCIS from relying on the 2019 policy for any purpose. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications would have been accepted” under USCIS’s previous policy, articulated in the 2013 Kim Memo.
It enjoins USCIS from deferring to EOIR jurisdictional determinations. USCIS is barred from “deferring to EOIR determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class.”
It orders USCIS to retract adverse decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and restrained” as described above.
It enjoins ICE from advocating against USCIS initial jurisdiction. Where a class member’s asylum application is pending before USCIS, ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs will continue to provide updates to practitioners as this litigation progresses. Advocates for clients: (1) who receive adverse decisions dated on or after June 30, 2019 that violate the terms of the amended preliminary injunction; or (2) in whose removal proceedings ICE advocates in violation of the amended preliminary injunction should contact Plaintiffs’ counsel Mary Tanagho Ross, mross@publiccounsel.org, and Kevin DeJong, KDeJong@goodwinlaw.com.
Thank you,
Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
******************
Thanks for another “great news” report, Michelle, my friend!
Finally, at long last, some Article III judges are “calling out” the highly unethical and glaringly unconstitutional “partnership” between ICE enforcement and EOIR to screw asylum seeking kids.
The EOIR White Nationalist agenda 🏴☠️ of limiting legitimate continuances and administrative closing to mindlessly, improperly, and inefficiently proceed in Immigration Court on matters that should be resolved through USCIS adjudication is not only thoroughly corrupt, but also totally counterproductive, as uncontrollably mounting EOIR backlogs and increasing Article III Court interventions have shown.
And, the completely unconstitutional and unethical call early on by corrupt former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions 🤮 for “his wholly owned EOIR judges” to join their “ICE enforcement partners” in racist immigrant bashing initiatives should long ago have been a basis for the Article IIIs to declare this entire ungodly mess in the Immigration Courts to be unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Thanks to you and other members of the NDPA, Michelle, for all you have done and continue to do to expose corruption, illegality, and wrongdoing in the regime’s sprawling, out of control, immigration kakistocracy! Now, we need you and other members of the NDPA like you on the Federal Bench to short circuit all the BS and get sane, legal, humane policies and “best interpretations and practices” in place “from the git go” and then enforce them on recalcitrant bureaucrats.
Racial Justice in America is, as it must be, one of the top Biden-Harris priorities! 🇺🇸 It can only be achieved if the White Nationalist mess at EOIR and ICE is cleaned up and replaced with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights in charge! There must be new, dynamic, and courageous leadership committed to controlling and reforming the actions of civil servants throughout government who furthered Stephen Miller’s vile racist agenda unlawfully and immorally targeting immigrants of color, their families, and their communities. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK, Jr.).
Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!
Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.
. . . .
*******************
Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!
It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”
But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.”But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation inwhat are essentially “crimes against humanity.”
Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:
immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.
American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).
The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers,failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.
⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴☠️👎🏻!
PWS
12-21-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Bill Barr’s Christmas Resignation” is one of the worst pieces of holiday content I have ever consumed! A letdown on every level. First, the title is not a pun. Second, the ending comes out of nowhere.
This story of a deceptively affable-seeming attorney general and how he decides to leave the Trump administration for good to spend the holidays with his family at first seems like it’s going to be standard Christmas fare. A 70-year-old man overly devoted to his occupation who feels no guilt about any of his past deeds and seems deficient in sympathy for his fellow man — what could possibly be a more classic Christmas movie setup? That is why what followed was so disappointing and jarring.
We open with Bill in his office, merrily redacting away at some document that probably should not have been redacted. He is visited by a malicious-looking elf who has messages for him. (Correction: I totally misread what was going on; this was actually senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner. I regret the error.)
We see a picture on Bill’s desk of his boss, Donald Trump, and he keeps going on and on about how excited he is to enact Donald Trump’s agenda. We also learn about all the executions he has scheduled after reinstating the death penalty for federal crimes. This seems incredibly brutal and dark but does establish a character who is going to grow a lot and learn he needs to change his ways.
He leaves the office and drives home past several signs expressing negative sentiments about Donald Trump. He passes Lafayette Square and remembers giving the go-ahead to fire pepper balls at peaceful protesters. He smiles his affable smile. Lights reflect off the window of his secure vehicle. A holiday song plays.
[Alexandra Petri: The 100 worst Christmas songs, ranked]
At this point you, the viewer, glance at your watch. This has been a lot of setup, you think. But it’s called “Bill Barr’s Christmas Resignation”! It ends with him leaving his job as the head of the Justice Department to be with his family. He wouldn’t just do that randomly, would he? There’s got to be an inciting incident of some kind. Perhaps when the clock strikes midnight he will be switched with his secret twin and forced to replicate the White House in fondant for a baking contest. Maybe he will get a call from the head of what claims to be a little-known European country — a perfect call, asking him to spend his holiday season there.
He arrives home and flicks on the TV, where he can see several sinister cronies of Donald Trump (whom he has personally allowed to avoid the consequences of their actions) roaming freely around the city inciting mobs of Proud Boys and even urging their followers to call for martial law. And then he goes to bed and — sleeps peacefully, on a MyPillow.
At this point a commercial for MyPillow came on — the whole thing was sponsored by MyPillow — and I quickly checked to make sure I was watching the right thing, because we were halfway through “Bill Barr’s Christmas Resignation” and he was still going about his life like he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong or needed to change his ways at all. He hadn’t even been assigned to a project he didn’t want to work on with a co-worker who loved Christmas a little too much.
After the commercial, we see Bill is having a dream. It seemed as though this would be when things turned around. In the dream, he walks through a populous city. He sees Want and Ignorance and gives them a thumbs-up. He sees his own tombstone with “Servant of Donald Trump” on it and smiles cheerily at it. He sees a little girl lighting match after match to keep herself warm and — adds the city to his list of Anarchist Jurisdictions.
. . . .
***************************
Read the rest Alexandra’s “Christmas Carol” at the link.
And, what about all the traumatized kids, abused refugee women, and killed or suffering asylum seekers? What’s their “holiday” going to be like as the result of the immoral and often illegal actions one of the most most egregious “faux Christians” in recent history?
