"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
San Ysidro rally focuses on treatment of immigrant women, girls at border
Critics say detention centers deny proper health care, feminine hygiene products
Activists from across the county held a rally Sunday in San Ysidro to highlight the inhumane treatment of immigrant women and girls held at detention centers across the nation’s southern border.
Waving signs saying “stop racism now” and “respect women of color,” the activists chanted “classrooms not cages” and “when immigrant rights are under attack, what do we do — stand up and fight back.”
Gathered on a baseball field near the international border and the Otay Mesa Detention Center, the roughly 60 activists listened to a series of speakers describe reports of poor treatment that women and girls are receiving in detention centers.
“The punishing conditions imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and Customs and Border Protection on immigrants at the southern border continue to threaten the lives of tens of thousands of vulnerable persons,” said Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Organization for Women, which organized the rally.
Van Pelt said there are an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 immigrants in detention centers along the border and that many are experiencing intolerable conditions.
Women and girls, she said, have experienced sexual assaults, harassment and limited access to feminine hygiene products. In addition, she said they are often not provided interpreters, reproductive health care or mental health care.
Van Pelt drew angry shouts of support from the crowd when she described women and girls being forced to continue wearing soiled undergarments because they aren’t provided proper hygiene products.
Government officials have acknowledged overcrowding and other problems at the detention centers.
President Donald Trump has said conditions are better than they were under the Obama administration. But many reports from immigrant and human rights groups dispute that.
Dolores Huerta, an 89-year-old icon in the feminist and labor movement, was the featured speaker at the rally.
Huerta, who co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, led the crowd in a chant of “Who’s got the power, we’ve got the power — feminist power.”
She also said it’s crucial for activists and others concerned about racism and poor treatment of immigrants to become as politically active as possible.
“There is only one way to change the situation,” she said. “We’ve got to get active out there in these next elections. We are the only ones who can make it happen — we can’t rely on anyone else.”
Among those at the rally were two first-year students at Cal State San Marcos.
“We want people to know that everyone deserves rights, not just one specific group,” said Vanessa Span, a Latina who grew up in Redding.
Kimi Herrera, also Latina, said our country was founded on immigration so it’s important to continue to respect the process.
“Coming from a background of immigrants, I think this is something really important to bring attention to,” said Herrera, who grew up in Glendora.
The rally took place at the Cesar Chavez Recreation Center in San Ysidro.
The true “national emergency” at our Southern Border is the Trump Administration’s attack, led by “Big Mac With Lies,” on our legal asylum system, Due Process, and human dignity. Nowhere is that more evident than within the deadly “New American Gulag”administered by Big Mac for Trump & Stephen Miller. How many more innocent women and girls will be abused by Trump & “Big Mac With Lies” before they are rightfully removed from office?
Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune and LA Times:
Judge orders U.S. to hold asylum seeker
Doubtful about his mental state, jurist prevents migrant from being sent to Mexico.
By Kate Morrissey
SAN DIEGO — An immigration judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep a Honduran asylum seeker in the United States while he waits for his court proceedings, instead of returning him to Mexico again under a Trump administration program.
Judge Scott Simpson said that after evaluating the man’s mental competence in a special hearing on Friday, he found that the man would need safeguards in his case to ensure due process. He ordered one put in place immediately: to remove the man from a program known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols and more widely as “Remain in Mexico.”
“I find that he lacks a rational and factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings,” Simpson said in issuing his order.
This is the first time that a judge has made such a ruling since the program was implemented in January, according to advocates who have been monitoring immigration court proceedings.
The program requires certain asylum seekers from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to wait in Mexico while their cases progress in immigration court. The man has been waiting in Tijuana as part of the program for several months.
A Customs and Border Protection guide for officials implementing the program says that migrants with known physical or mental health issues should not be included.
“It’s a big deal that a judge recognized that there was a predatory nature to having put this person in the ‘Migrant Persecution Protocols,’ ” said Ian Philabaum of Innovation Law Lab, calling the program a name used by some immigrant rights advocates. “He wasn’t going to have a chance, and now he gets a chance.”
At the man’s first hearing in March, Simpson quickly became concerned that the man might have a mental competency issue that would make him ineligible for the program or require other protections. He ordered DHS to evaluate the man’s mental state.
Simpson asked government attorneys at each hearing after that whether the man’s mental state had been evaluated and whether the government believed he should continue to be included in the program.
Each time, the government attorney responded that the man should continue in MPP.
Still skeptical, Simpson told Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney Dan Hua to be prepared to give details Friday about DHS’s evaluation of the man before he was returned to Mexico. When the judge came into court Friday morning, Hua was not able to answer that question.
“The government’s inability to provide that information is simply not excusable,” Simpson said. He gave Hua 30 minutes to find out answers.
Hua said immigration officials at the port of entry had evaluated the man each time he’d come to court, meaning that as of Friday, he’d been evaluated four times.
The attorney could not produce evidence showing what the evaluation observed or what standard it used when the judge pressed for more details.
Philabaum said that fact was significant.
“That assessment of the mental competency was performed on four different occasions, and on four different occasions, according to the U.S. government attorney, their assessment was he was perfectly competent to proceed with his immigration case representing himself,” Philabaum said. But in the man’s “first hearing, it took the immigration judge approximately two minutes to realize there was an issue of competency here.
“Whatever type of standard that CBP has instituted to assess the competency of an individual to be eligible, according to the immigration judge today, it has failed.”
DHS officials, CBP officials and Department of Justice officials did respond to a request for comment.
Simpson decided to do his own evaluation of the man’s mental state under an immigration court precedent known as the Matter of MAM.
He listed the rights that the man has, such as the right to present evidence and the right to question witnesses. He asked if the man understood his rights.
“Um, yes. I need more,” said the man through a Spanish interpreter. “I need more because here I only have some letters, some birth certificates. They’re not translated into English yet.”
“Sir, I’m the immigration judge in your case. It’s my job to decide whether you can stay in the United States,” Simpson said. “In your own words, tell me who am I and what’s my job.”
“I cannot understand you,” the man responded.
In the end, the man was only able to appropriately respond to simple questions such as the date and what city he was in. He told the judge he had not had much schooling and couldn’t read or write.
ICE later confirmed the man is pending transfer to the agency’s custody. He could be taken to an immigration detention facility or released “on parole” into the U.S. to a sponsor while he waits for his next hearing.
Simpson said that depending which option the government chooses, other safeguards may be necessary, including providing an attorney for him if he’s detained.
Morrissey writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
*********************************
Every day the human carnage mounts as the 9th Circuit continues to “sponsor” Trump’s illegal, deadly, and unconstitutional “Remain in Mexico Program.” Interesting how a few non-life-tenured Immigration Judges in San Diego and one courageous U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of California seem to be the only Federal officials interested in either the rule of law or the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. Go figure!
Congrats to Judge Scott Simpson for standing up for the rule of law and the rights of the most vulnerable in the face of massive dereliction of duty by those higher up the line.
Sadly, unlike the 9th Circuit, Judge Simpson lacks authority to enjoin further violations of the law and human rights by the Trump Administration. How many more human beings will suffer, be wronged, and perhaps die as a result of the 9th Circuit’s complicity in scofflaw behavior having little or nothing to do with protecting our borders or any other legitimate policy end and everything to do with punishing and dehumanizing those who seek justice under our laws.?
Alexandria, VA, June 9, 2019.After a week of petulance, threats, and self-created drama, Trump produced a resounding trade and immigration dud. Faced with advisors telling him that he was endangering the economy, the only thing propping up his sagging popularity, a potential rebellion among GOP legislators, and an unexpectedly tough and resolute Mexico, Trump backed off of his insane and blatantly illegal plan to ignore U.S. asylum obligations and thereby rocket the U.S. to the upper echelons of international scofflaws and human rights violators.
The latter scheme, known as “safe third country,” would have mis-designated Mexico and, incredibly, Guatemala, two clearly “unsafe” countries to do the U.S.’s job by processing tens of thousands of asylum applications from those fleeing the Northern Triangle. Neither of the two countries has a viable, fair, and effective asylum adjudication system and both have major safety and human rights issues.
Instead, Trump accepted a vague compact by which Mexico and the U.S. basically agreed to do what they had already been doing without taking any decisive or effective action to address the actual humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle that Trump and his flunkies have consistently mischaracterized as a “law enforcement emergency.” Indeed, the New York Times reported that most of Mexico’s “unprecedented steps” had already been worked out in secret with deposed DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen months ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html. Those interested can read the summary of the agreement prepared by Trump’s own State Department here. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-us-mexico-tariffs-declaration-20190607-story.html.
To be sure, desperate and vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly women and children, will continue to abused, raped, beaten, extorted, obscenely tortured, and killed with impunity and little if any recourse as a result of this week’s actions. But, at least for now, the U.S. and Mexico are maintaining much of the basic framework of domestic and international protection laws.
Contrary to the lies and false narratives spread by Trump and his DHS cronies, U.S. law is not filled with “loopholes.” Rather, it is a fairly straightforward implementation of the international protection regime and treaties that have been in effect since World War II to prevent another holocaust from occurring on our watch.
If anything, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has watered down its asylum commitment somewhat by adding a legally tenuous “credible fear” process to “pre-screen” arriving asylum applicants in mass migration situations. However, to date, the DHS under Trump has been too incompetent, misdirected, and frankly downright stupid to utilize this streamlined screening process fairly and efficiently.
By treating a somewhat predictable humanitarian refugee flow as a bogus “law enforcement problem” and mindlessly shoving cases into a “captive” court system that they already had abused, mismanaged, and destroyed, the Administration lost effective control. In panic, they have tried to blame the refugees, Democrats, Mexico, Obama, judges, the media, and even the truly hapless failed states of the Northern Triangle for their largely self-created human and operational disaster.
The first of the “unprecedented steps,” involves Mexico sending approximately 6,000 National Guard troops to the Guatemalan border to control illegal crossings. Never mind that the Mexican National Guard is a recent creation that exists largely on paper. Also, forget that Mexico has a questionable record of controlling corruption and systematic human rights abuses among its existing police and military forces.
The U.S., a much larger, better organized, and more prosperous country than Mexico, has resorted to militarizing the border, mass incarceration, family concentration camps, kids in cages, malicious criminal prosecutions, family separations, walls, fences, overt political interference in the asylum adjudication system, and violating international protection norms. These “gonzo” enforcement efforts not only failed to stem the tide, but have actually aided smugglers and traffickers and increased the flow of migrants.
Will newly minted, untrained Mexican troops succeed where the might of the U.S. has failed miserably? Don’t count on it.
Also, the last time I checked, it appeared that most of the Mexican coast and some parts of the U.S. are reasonably accessible by boat from the Northern Triangle. So, assuming that the Mexicans could “shut down” their land border with Guatemala, why wouldn’t smugglers “take to the sea?” How’s that Mexican Navy?
The second “unprecedented step,” is a continuation and expansion of the existing “Remain in Mexico Program.” This toxic gimmick punishes those who have been legally determined to have a “credible fear” of persecution by making them remain in some of the most dangerous locations in the world where they are intentionally and illegally impeded in many ways from pursuing their U.S. asylum claims from Mexico. To date, this program has only been implemented in a few locations, like San Diego where it has been an unmitigated failure according to a report from Kate Morrissey of the San Diego Union-Tribune. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/06/06/cruel-yet-really-stupid-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy-denies-due-process-while-creating-court-chaos-enfeebled-judges-fume-as-aimless-docket-reshufflin/.
The results of this ill-advised effort by Trump to circumvent U.S. asylum laws reads like a “legal toxicology report:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” mass confusion, lack of information, insufficient and deficient hearing notices, massive violations of the statutory right to be represented by counsel, no opportunity to fairly prepare, document, and present asylum claims, interference with the attorney-client relationship by DHS, and few actual case completions to name just a few of the many abuses. And, how will an already dysfunctional EOIR deal with yet another round of “new priorities” and more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling?”
A Federal District Judge actually enjoined this circus before it could get rolling. But, a “tone-deaf panel” of the Ninth Circuit allowed Trump’s assault on the rule of law to go forward, at least for now.
Nevertheless, the case remains pending with the Ninth Circuit. As EOIR’s rushed and sloppy work product starts to accumulate on their docket and the bodies and horror stories start to pile up in Mexico, more responsible Circuit Judges might actually force the Administration to comply with the law and the Constitution, not to mention simple human decency.
Mexico has pledged to “accept and protect” those sentenced to remain there. But, the Mexican border locations to which individuals are forced to return are dangerous for a reason. Presumably, if Mexican can’t maintain safety and order for its own citizens, it won’t do any better for vulnerable asylum seekers.
Finally, in third “unprecedented step,” Mexico and the U.S. agreed to promote the “Comprehensive Development Plan launched by the government of Mexico in concert with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras” to create “prosperity, good governance and security in Central America.” This part of the agreement makes the most sense. But “promoting” in this case appears limited to using development funds that were “already in the pipeline” in both countries. In other words, nothing really new here.
This was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to show real leadership by dramatically increasing its investment in bringing stability and prosperity to Mexico and Central America. Additionally, we could have created incentives (rather than threats) and benchmarks for Mexico to improve its asylum adjudication system and human rights performance. Partnering with non-governmental-organizations and legal assistance groups on both sides of the border also would bring much needed expertise in resolving asylum issues to the table.
But, that would have taken a President with vision, empathy, compassion, courage, competency, intelligence, and creative problem solving ability. Trump is the exact antithesis of all of these qualities.
Consequently, sooner or later we can expect Trump’s “latest egg” to fail, like all of his other gimmicks and maliciously incompetent schemes on immigration. Our “child president” will undoubtedly then embark on a new barrage of lies, false narratives, idiotic tweets, idle threats, blame shifting, insults, racist dog whistles, and general nonsense aimed at diverting attention from his own failures as a leader and more critically, as a human being.
Innocent people will be harmed and die, America and Mexico will be embarrassed and diminished, and the world will be a worse place. But, until America figures out how to use its democratic institutions to remove the kakistocracy, the disaster will continue. That it could have been worse, is only small consolation.
Why not strive to bethe “best that we can be,” rather than just “not as bad as we might have been?”
SAN DIEGO — The San Diego immigration court has been overwhelmed by the number of cases judges are hearing under a Trump administration program that returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for hearings in the U.S.
Normally, asylum seekers coming to the California border would be distributed to immigration courts across the country, either because they would be held somewhere in the federal government’s national immigration detention system or because they would be released to reunite with family and friends already in the U.S.
Now, the increasing number of people picked for the administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, known widely as the Remain in Mexico program, across the California border are all being sent to immigration court in downtown San Diego.
“Other than wallow through it, I don’t know what we can do,” said Immigration Judge Lee O’Connor shortly before walking out of his courtroom at 6:21 p.m. one evening last week after hearing a string of MPP cases. Court staff, including security, had left the building long before.
Immigration judges are already working under performance quotas set by the Trump administration to reduce the immigration court backlog, which has grown nationally to nearly 900,000 cases, according to data from the Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse of Syracuse University.
The San Diego court has more than 5,700 cases pending, up from 4,692 cases in fiscal 2018, a 22.4% increase. Nationally, the backlog has grown about 16.2% in fiscal 2019.
“This is a reflection of the constant doublespeak we’ve been highlighting. The agency has internally conflicting priorities,” said Ashley Tabaddor, speaking in her capacity as head of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges. “It creates chaos.”
On a given day, three of San Diego’s seven judges generally have afternoons full of MPP cases. On a recent Tuesday afternoon, 82 people were scheduled to appear before three judges, 28 of those before O’Connor.
“The judges have no control in terms of how many cases are being scheduled,” Tabaddor said.
Border officials who initially receive migrants either requesting protection at a port of entry or after they’re apprehended crossing illegally are responsible for scheduling the first court appearance for returnees.
Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security was unable to respond to questions in time for publication.
Several of the judges assigned to hear cases in San Diego have pushed back on the government for a laundry list of issues that could be violations of the government’s due process responsibilities under immigration law.
Tabaddor said she’s heard a number of concerns from her union members who are trying to make sure “all of the T’s are crossed and all of the i’s are dotted” in implementation of the new program. “That’s what the oath of office is,” Tabaddor said. “You’re supposed to make sure all the rules are followed.”
One that has come up over and over again is the address put down initially on each asylum seeker’s case documents by border officials. Along the California border, Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol have written some version of “Domicilio conocido,” or “known address.”
Some have “Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.” Others simply say “Baja California” without the city or the country noted.
Having an accurate address on file is key to showing that immigrants were given proper notice of their court hearings. That proof of notice is a crucial part of a judge’s decision to proceed “in absentia” and order a person deported if he or she doesn’t show up for a hearing.
“This whole program, I don’t understand it,” said Immigration Judge Jesús Clemente on his first day of hearing MPP cases. “How are we ever going to tell this person that he has a hearing?”
Similarly, when an government attorney suggested that it was the asylum seeker’s responsibility to provide an accurate address, Immigration Judge Scott Simpson responded with incredulity. “Are you saying the respondent provided this address?” he asked, referring to the asylum seeker. “Are you saying every respondent in the MPP program provided this address?”
“I can’t speak to that,” the attorney representing ICE responded. “In my experience, the address the respondent provides is what is put down.”
“That’s how it usually works,” Simpson replied. “But I’m not convinced that’s what’s happening now.”
When asked about the address issue recently, San Ysidro Port of Entry Director Sidney Aki said that migrants don’t often know where they will be staying when they’re first returned.
To prevent any miscommunication, Aki said, they’re told to return to the port of entry at a particular date and time.
Normally, if a judge believes that the government violated an asylum seeker’s due process rights, the judge can terminate immigration proceedings against that person, said attorney Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Then the asylum seeker can apply for protection outside of immigration court in a process that is less adversarial.
For returnees who are ultimately hoping for asylum in the U.S., termination won’t help them because they’ll be returned to Mexico with no access to the U.S. asylum system, she said.
“It essentially removes their ability to vindicate their due process rights,” Toczylowski said.
Among other issues, the dates on instructions given to returnees that explain when to come back to the San Ysidro Port of Entry to be taken to court don’t always match the dates on their hearing notices. Or, the government fails to file the preliminary paperwork in the case and the immigration court doesn’t have a hearing scheduled for the person when he or she shows up.
“I’m sure you’re frustrated,” Simpson said to a man whose paperwork had not properly been filed by the government, resulting in a delay in the start of his case. “I share your frustration.”
Asylum cases typically have several preliminary hearings, known as “master calendar hearings,” before the “merits hearing,” where evidence is presented for the judge to make a decision on the person’s claim. During those master calendar hearings, asylum seekers are given time to look for attorneys, are told their rights in immigration court, and are given applications to fill out and submit.
Juan, a doctor who fled Honduras after facing threats for his participation in political protest, filed his asylum application in mid-May. His merits hearing was scheduled for November.
Where to live and how to sustain themselves in Tijuana is becoming a larger and larger issue as more asylum seekers are returned. Despite its promises at the program’s outset, Mexico has not given many of the returnees permission to work while they wait.
Tijuana’s migrant shelters are already at or near capacity, and most of the people staying in them are not returnees from the program.
One returnee who had become homeless and tried crossing illegally only to be returned again to Tijuana said he was planning on going back to his country in the coming days. It would be better to die there, he said, than to continue living as he’s been living in Tijuana.
Juan is one of the lucky ones. He is staying at a shelter near the border. Still, he’s worried about the long wait ahead.
“The policy’s name is migrant protection, but they send you to the most dangerous city in Mexico,” he said.
Morrissey writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
****************************************
The Ninth Circuit had an opportunity to put at least a temporary halt to this blatant denial of the statutory right to counsel and the constitutional right to adequate notice and Due Process. They “swallowed the whistle.” Eventually, these feckless and complicit Article III courts will find their own dockets overwhelmed with the results of their inaction in the face of a Due Process, operational, and human rights disaster of gargantuan proportions in the U.S. Immigration Courts as mal-administered by the DOJ.
Of course, the real culprit is Congress, which has failed to act to require an independent, constitutional U.S. Immigration Court. But, the word “feckless” doesn’t begin to describe a body that under Mitch McConnell has intentionally ceded its constitutional power to govern and oversee in the overall public interest to an unqualified, scofflaw President who respects neither democratic institutions nor the rule of law.
Wendy Fry reports in the LA Times/San Diego Times-Union:
SAN DIEGO — Three months into the Department of Homeland Security’s program that requires asylum-seeking migrants to wait in Mexico until their U.S. immigration hearings, observers said Friday that the policy may actually be encouraging illegal border crossings.
Last week, migrants rushed the border at least four times at Playas de Tijuana, many of them saying they were motivated by not wanting to wait in Mexico.
A Customs and Border Protection official said migrants who cross the border illegally are not being returned to Mexico while they seek asylum. Instead, they are taken into custody, where they eventually get to wait in the United States, sometimes up to three or four years until their asylum hearings before an American immigration judge.
“Why would I spend three years here in Tijuana when I could be in the United States?” asked Jeydi Fuentes Lopez Montes, a 29-year-old mother from Honduras traveling with a 1-year-old child. “I know there is work here in Tijuana, but isn’t the work better over there?”
Fuentes said she went to Tijuana planning to wait in line to ask for asylum, but she said that when she learned the list to get an initial appointment with U.S. officials could take several months, she decided to try to find another way into the U.S.
Legal experts say a judge is not allowed to deny a person’s asylum request based solely on whether he or she entered the country legally or illegally.
Samuel Rodriguez Guzman, from El Salvador, arrived in Tijuana this month. He said he went to the beach Thursday after hearing about more people successfully entering the U.S. illegally, and seeing on the news people getting through the border infrastructure at Playas.
“I’m trying whatever way I can to immigrate to the United States,” Rodriguez said. “I had problems with the gangs in my country and my father did, too. They want to kill us. When we get there to the United States, they have to respect our human rights to ask for asylum, right?”
Alan Bersin, the former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said there is no coordinated system between the Mexican government and the U.S. to accept large numbers of migrants returned to Tijuana.
So far, fewer than 300 people have been returned to Mexico under the program.
“It’s an incompetent program,” said Bersin, adding that people who cross illegally should be returned to Mexico in the same numbers as those who wait for months in line for their turn to cross legally.
“This policy has a chance of succeeding as a deterrent,” he said. “But [Mexican President Andres Manuel] Lopez Obrador is trying to avoid a fight with Trump so he says yes to everything but does nothing.”
This month, migrants have been climbing through holes in border fencing at Playas or climbing over the 15-foot-high fence.
On March 13, some people slipped through a hole in the border fencing near the beach. One of the men, who was seen in a video running down the beach carrying a small child while a border agent chased him, provided updates via WhatsApp to several people in his group and some witnesses. He said he was not apprehended and made it to Los Angeles.
A group of about 60 people who crossed on March 14 included men, women and children, most of whom said they were from Honduras. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Ralph DeSio said 52 people from that group were arrested.
Border officials also arrested 23 people from Honduras and one from Guatemala on Tuesday after they scaled the fence near the beach.
Then Thursday, activity at the border intensified as border agents and migrants clashed.
Two migrants and several witnesses said agents shot pepper spray across the fence and into their eyes. During the incident, one man climbed the fence and dropped into the U.S. before he was detained by border agents.
DeSio said Customs and Border Protection is averaging 167 arrests a day in the San Diego County area of responsibility, which stretches east to past Jacumba.
“Every arrest in San Diego Sector is investigated. Every breach in San Diego County is a concern whether it’s near Imperial Beach or in Jacumba,” DeSio said in a written statement. “Compromises in our fence are common due to our aging infrastructure. Efforts are made to repair breaches or compromises in a timely manner.”
On Friday, another hole big enough for people to climb through was visible at the base of the border fence at Playas.
“Really, we’re tired of fighting because we just want to cross and ask for asylum…. We’re not rude. We are allowed to come here and ask for asylum,” said Jose Reinera, a Honduran migrant who climbed up on top of the fence at Las Playas on Thursday.
Reinera said he turned back and climbed back down on the Mexican side of the border when he realized his wife and children would not be able to make the climb.
Fry writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
*******************************************
Up until now, the Administration has been fortunate that their cruel, sometimes illegal, and always incompetent policies haven’t made things even worse.
Fact is, most individuals applying for asylum still turn themselves in either at legal ports of entry or shortly after crossing the border to apply for asylum. They can be logged in, fingerprinted, screened for criminal records and credible fear. Those who can’t demonstrate credible fear can be expeditiously returned.
Those who pass, become part of the legal system. If given an opportunity to understand the asylum system, obtain legal a representation (we know that represented asylum applicants succeed at a rate of 4X to 17X those who are forced to proceed without representation) and fairly present their cases, most will show up in Immigration Court. Many of those who are represented and treated fairly will qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), even in today’s administrative system which has been intentionally and unfairly skewed against them and their claims.
Those who don’t qualify will be subject to removal, although many will nevertheless face very real and legitimate harm (not fitting within our legalistic and often arcane asylum system) that a more prudent and humane Administration might use to fashion some type of temporary or long-term respite from removal.
But, if the Administration succeeds in it’s mindless plan to destroy the legal asylum and Immigration Court systems, forced migrants, who come of necessity not choice, will simply stop using it. With the help of smugglers, and paying higher prices and taking more deadly risks, many will simply be smuggled into the interior of our country. There, they will lose themselves in our huge country with a diverse population and an insatiable need for labor at all levels.
No screening, no registration, no taxes, etc. — some will undoubtedly be caught and removed. But the vast majority will remain “in the underground” until 1) we legalize them; 2) they decide that conditions have changed so it is their best interests to return to their native lands, or 3) they eventually get old and die. Not to mention that by forcing them into the “immigration black market” we deprive them of their human dignity and a chance to contribute their full potential to our country, while we lose the many benefits of having them do so.
Sounds like a bad system. But, it’s the type of mindless, White Nationalist, “lose, lose, lose” restrictionism that this Administration loves to feed to its “political base.” A bigger “immigration underground” means more folks to hate, loathe, blame, and run against.
Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:
Two of the three asylum seekers who were supposed to show up for the first immigration court hearings under the “Remain in Mexico” policy did not make it across the border on Thursday to appear.
After the Homeland Security Secretary announced what she called a “historic” program, known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols, in December, many wondered — and worried — about the logistics of shuttling migrants back and forth across the border for court hearings.At least one of the people who had been returned to Tijuana after asking for asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry missed the court hearings because of what Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Rico Bartolomei called a “glitch” in the scheduling system.
Court cases for the program were supposed to start next Tuesday, but somehow cases got scheduled for this Thursday, Bartolomei explained. At first, the court tried to reschedule those hearings for Tuesday but realized it wouldn’t have a way to communicate that effectively with the asylum seekers in Mexico.
The issue was that when the court rescheduled to March 19, anyone who called its toll-free number to check for court date updates thought that the hearings would be on March 19. That happened in the case of one Honduran woman who had Los Angeles-based attorney Olga Badilla representing her.
Badilla explained to the judge that she had only learned the day before that the hearing had moved back to March 14 and that her client hadn’t found out in time to be at the port of entry at 9 a.m. She arrived a couple of hours later, but Customs and Border Protection officers wouldn’t let her into the U.S. for her hearing.
“She’s present at the port of entry and ready to come in,” Badilla told the judge, asking for the court’s help. “It’s an unusual situation given the circumstances.”
Aguilar said the judge should order the woman deported in her absence.
Bartolomei denied that motion, saying that the woman had received “insufficient notice” of the hearing. Instead, he scheduled a future date with Badilla to turn in the woman’s asylum application.
Though the woman was given another chance to show up for court, she ran into more problems down at the border. Her permit to stay in Mexico was on the verge of expiring in anticipation of her crossing into the U.S. for court. If she had crossed and returned again, she would likely get a new one. Without entering the U.S., she was about to become deportable from Mexico.
When court ended for the day, Badilla went to try to help her client.
The other person who didn’t show up for court, a 24-year-old man from Honduras, had also had his case rescheduled through the court’s glitch.
ICE attorney Aguilar again moved to have the man ordered deported.
Bartolomei pushed the ICE attorney about whether it made sense to order someone deported from the U.S. while they are still in Mexico. He asked if it made more sense to consider the person’s application for admission withdrawn.
According to immigration attorney Tammy Lin, a withdrawal would limit potential restrictions on the man’s ability to come to the U.S. in the future. A deportation order would make it much more difficult for the man to come to the U.S.
During the conversation, Bartolomei sighed audibly, weighing the options before him.
Then he decided to reschedule his case for the 19th to see if the man showed up then. Since he didn’t have an address to send the new hearing notice to, he gave it to the Department of Homeland Security to pass on to the man.
The one person who did show up did not have an attorney. Also from Honduras, the man arrived at El Chaparral plaza outside the port of entry well before 9 a.m. A volunteer from a legal services organization that supports migrants in the plaza every morning before they ask for asylum saw him and escorted him to the gate inside the port that marks the entry to the U.S.
He waited in line, shuffling down the spiral walkway in a mix of commuters, shoppers and friends returning from trips abroad. When he got to the front of the line, a Customs and Border Protection official held him to the side to wait for the other two who were supposed to come.
He was nervous, he said.
A few minutes after 9 a.m., several CBP officers and two plainclothes officials took him into the U.S. Officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement transported him from the port of entry to the office building in downtown San Diego that houses the immigration court.
He arrived at the court before noon and sat in a corner of the back row of benches, head bowed.
When it was his turn to face the judge, he spoke softly into the microphone and watched attentively as Bartolomei explained each of the documents he had received.
Bartolomei asked him if he wanted more time to find an attorney.
Yes, the man replied.
The judge granted him another month to try to find someone to help him and told him he would likely be taken back to Mexico again.
“I know it will be difficult to try to get an attorney from there,” Bartolomei told him, urging him to try his best to find a lawyer to take his case.
When his turn was over, ICE officers quickly whisked him away, back to the port of entry.
***********************************************
Notice will continue to be an issue in this ill-designed process. It actually appears that it will be impossible to properly serve anyone at a “last known address” in Mexico. Thus, any in absentia hearings should ultimately be vacated for lack of notice and will have to be re-started. That’s what “ADR” is all about.
The ICE Attorney was both unhelpful and probably unethical when he insisted on frivolously moving for an “in absentia” order given the obvious scheduling and notice issues attributable to his agency’s choice of this “historically” goofed up and perhaps illegal method of proceeding. Unwillingness to assume any responsibility for their own frequent screw ups and predictably bad policy choices is certainly a “hallmark” of the Trump Administration!
Once of the things that made the Arlington Immigration Court run as well as it did during my tenure was the sense of justice, common sense, practicality, and overall cooperation and helpfulness of the ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in working with the Immigration Judges and private bar to “keeping the ball moving down the field.” Apparently deprived of such a professional approach by the mindless “due process and common sense be damned policies” of this Administration, today’s Immigration Judges face additional roadblocks in promoting efficiency and fairness in accordance with the law. No wonder the backlogs are growing exponentially even with more Immigration Judges on the bench!
Here’s how might a “due process and efficiency-oriented system” could have dealt with the same issues:
Work with the private sector to obtain local counsel for individuals who have passed the “credible fear” process;
Find out how long it will take the lawyer to prepare the application for asylum for filing with the Immigration Court;
Choose a compatable date for filing at the “Initial Master” from a computerized list of “available first Master dates” on Judge Bartolomei’s calendar made available by EOIR;
Release the applicant to a local nonprofit who will help insure that he or she understands the system and the importance of keeping attorney meetings and appearing before the Immigration Court as scheduled;
At the first Master, the attorney files the completed asylum application with Judge Bartolomei, and he assigns an Individual Hearing date;
Presto! A system that works, uses court and judicial time wisely, and promotes fair and efficient results.
Contrast that with the mindless system described above. The key: under the current system everybody has wasted time and effort, particularly Judge Bartholomei, but without getting any closer to assigning an actual Individual Hearing date than on the day the applicant passed “credible fear.”
That’s how Government-created “bogus emergencies” happen. It’s really important that folks like Kate keep reporting on the “nitty gritty” of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” and how it is destroying and degrading our immigration and justice systems on a daily basis.
Undoubtedly, this Administration will attempt to shift blame for its own predictable failures to the victims — asylum seekers, their lawyers, and Immigration Judges. It’s important that the Trump Administration be held fully accountable, both in the present and for history, for the consequences of their terrible White Nationalist restrictionist agenda.
Kate Morrissey writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Constantin Bakala and his family have survived kidnapping, torture, rape, poison and a shipwreck.
Now, faced with the complexities of the U.S. immigration system, they may be on the verge of defeat.
Bakala, 48, and his family fled their home in the Democratic Republic of Congo in late 2016 after they were targeted for Bakala’s participation in an opposition party that promoted democracy in the country, according to his wife.
After traveling through more than 10 countries, the family arrived at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in November 2017. Bakala was separated from his wife and seven children and sent to an immigration detention center in Georgia while they were released to live in the San Diego area, a common practice at the time. He hasn’t seen them since.
Because they were separated physically, their cases were also handled separately in immigration court. Since the federal government prioritizes detained cases, Bakala’s finished before the family’s even began, according to their attorney.
Unable to find an attorney to represent him at the detention center in rural Georgia and with little money to even pay for phone calls to the outside world to try to get help, Bakala faced by himself an immigration court known for being tough on asylum seekers. Judge Michael Baird, who heard his case, granted 11 of the 152 asylum cases that he decided between fiscal 2013 and 2018, records show.
Bakala lost.
He tried to appeal the case by himself and was denied that as well, according to court records. Now the family, with the help of a San Diego church, has found an attorney to help him, but it may be too late.
He is convinced that if he returns to the Democratic Republic of Congo, he will be murdered by his own government.
Bakala’s party membership card shows he was part of the Rassemblement des Congolais Démocrates et Nationalistes, or RCDN, which opposed former president Joseph Kabila’s maneuvers to stay in power past his term limit. When Bakala wasn’t at his job at the Ministry of Health, he worked with the party’s youth and advised them on how to demonstrate peacefully against the ruling party, his wife Annie Bwetu Kapongo said.
Bwetu Kapongo tells their story slowly, haltingly, sometimes with painful detail and sometimes in circles, a symptom of the trauma she carries from what happened.
She remembers when her husband first told her about getting threatened, and she remembers the day he went missing in 2016.
When she went to the police to ask for help finding him, she was locked in a room that reeked of urine. Later, three policemen came in, beat her and raped her. She tried to stop them and pointed out that she was pregnant.
The men didn’t care, she said. She ended up losing the baby.
When she was eventually able to return home, her husband was still missing. The two stores she owned, one that sold fish and one that sold cakes and juice, were broken into and robbed by people looking for her husband, who had by this point escaped where he had been imprisoned and tortured, according to his attorney.
One night, Bwetu Kapongo woke up to the family dog’s aggressive barking before hearing it abruptly stop. They found the dog dead the next day.
Another night, she and the children got sick. Their heads were spinning, and they were vomiting. Eventually, they found a tool someone had used to release poison into the house, she said.
Finally, one night she heard a knock on her window. It was her husband.
Aided by people he’d brought to help the family, they scooped the children out of their beds while they were sleeping and fled in a boat down a river to the Republic of Congo, where the people helping them paid for their hotel, Bwetu Kapongo said.
They waited a couple of months there until they had travel documents to get to Brazil and left in early 2017 to begin a grueling journey to the U.S. border.
“We came because America respects the law, and they know how to protect people,” Bwetu Kapongo said through a translator.
In each of the countries they passed through, officials told them that they could not stay, she added. They were sent from Panama back to Colombia when they tried to get across the border by boat and ended up having to make the grueling 6- to 7-day walk through the jungle to Costa Rica.
In Costa Rica, they found a boat that would take them to Nicaragua.
After they’d been on it for about 45 minutes, Bwetu Kapongo heard shots fired at them. She told her children to lay down. Then, the boat broke, she said, and it began to sink.All of a sudden, her youngest child Joseph, who is now 5, was no longer in her arms.
She started to drown.
“Is this a nightmare? Is this real? Is this happening?” she recalled asking the darkness that surrounded her.
She felt other bodies in the water, hands pushing her head down as they tried desperately to reach the surface. She felt someone clutch her neck. It was David, her 12-year-old son.
When a rescue boat pulled her to safety, she found her 17-year-old daughter Marie Louise. Bwetu Kapongo began to pray, crying out the names of her five other children and asking God to find them. Her husband was soon rescued from the water and prayed with her.
When rescuers noticed bubbles moving in the water, they found Joseph along with 8-year-old Moses and 10-year-old Augustine clinging to a rope and pulled them to safety.
Emmanuel, her 15-year-old son, had been carried further away into the water with 14-year-old Daniel. They found a life preserver that had been thrown into the water and clung to it, bringing with them two girls from another family who were also nearly drowning.
When Emmanuel used the last of his strength to cry out, rescuers found them, Bwetu Kapongo said. Two people who had been on the boat died, one adult and one child.
Though the family survived, all of the documents and photos that could have been used as evidence were lost in the water.
They would have to journey by boat two more times between Costa Rica and Nicaragua before successfully making it the rest of the way up to the U.S. border.
Bwetu Kapongo said she expected to receive “protection and respect” when they arrived. Instead, her husband was quickly taken away.
It is only when she reaches this point in the story that she begins to cry.
She wouldn’t hear from him for about a month. He told her that he didn’t know how to find her, that it took that long for officials to give him information about where she was.
The family’s attorney Julie Hartlé said the family’s story is “horrific but not unusual.” Other attorneys she knows have had similar cases.
“This family meets every criteria. They were persecuted for being democracy activists, kidnapped and tortured by their own government,” Hartlé said. “It meets the exact definition of asylum for political persecution. It should’ve been straightforward. They were able to use the detention system against them.”
Bakala had to fill out his asylum application in English, a language he does not speak well. Though he told the judge verbally about three times he was taken by police, how he was beaten, interrogated and held without food, he only put information about one of the incidents in his application.
“That sounds like a pretty bad event,” the judge said in his ruling of one of the incidents Bakala described. “Unfortunately, it is never mentioned anywhere in the respondent’s application for asylum.”
The evidence that Bakala was able to gather and present — including a notice from his political party about his disappearance, another notice that the ruling party was looking for him, his voter ID card and party membership card — was not translated into English, so the judge said he couldn’t consider it, according to court records. He found Bakala’s story not credible.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review said it does not comment on judges’ decisions.
Neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and Border Protection were able to respond to request for comment in time for publication.
As immigration officials prepared to deport Bakala, attorneys filed emergency motions to temporarily keep him in the U.S. to try to reopen his case with new evidence. Last week, the 11th Circuit granted him a stay until Friday.
In the meantime, members of the church helping the family here in San Diego are planning a protest outside of the federal building at noon on Thursday in support of Bakala.
Bwetu Kapongo said the most important thing for her is protection for her children.
“He sacrificed his life to protect his kids,” she said in French. “If we hadn’t done what we did, they would already be dead.”
Beyond that, she wishes for her husband’s return. She tries to hide her exhaustion and her tears from her children, but she doesn’t think she can raise them alone.
“After the mountain I went through, I’ve got no more strength,” she said.
******************************************
So, how might a real judge, one committed to guaranteeing fundamental fairness, due process, and properly applying the generous dictates of U.S. asylum law have approached this case?
First, Bakala comes from a country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) which is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, where persecution is rampant. For example, the DRC received a score of 17 on a scale of 100 in the latest Freedom House freedom rankings.
Here’s a quote from the most recent U.S. State Department Country Report summarizing the daily horrors of life in the DRC:
The most significant human rights issues included: unlawful killings; disappearances and abductions; torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and rape; life-threatening conditions in prisons and detention facilities; arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention; denial of fair public trial; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press, assembly, and association; abuse of internally displaced persons (IDPs); inability of citizens to change their government through democratic means; harassment of civil society, opposition, and religious leaders; corruption and a lack of transparency at all levels of government; violence and stigmatization against women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons, and persons with albinism, with little government action to investigate, prosecute, or hold perpetrators accountable; trafficking in persons, including forced labor, including by children; and violations of worker rights.
Authorities often took no steps to investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed abuses, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government, and impunity for human rights abuses was a problem.
Therefore, knowing that Bakala comes from a notorious “refugee producing country,” the Immigration Judge should have insisted as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness that the case be continued until the respondent could get the assistance of a competent lawyer to fully and fairly present a case for saving his life.
Asylum law has been made intentionally and unnecessarily complicated by a politicized system run with a strong enforcement bias; statistics, as well as experience, show that unrepresented individuals have virtually no realistic chance of success, particularly in a system run by an Administration clearly prejudiced against them. Human lives become mere “case completions.”
Second, Bakala’s wife also appears to have a strong asylum claim in her own right. If granted, he could also have been protected as a derivative asylee under his wife’s application. Therefore, unless ICE were basically willing to stipulate to an asylum grant, proceeding with the cases separately was presumptively unfair. A judge committed to fairness, would have “pushed” the ICE Counsel on why this family’s cases were not being heard together.
Third, to justify an adverse credibility finding under the statute and BIA precedents, the judge’s ruling must demonstrate significant discrepancies or omissions, provide cogent reasoning, and carefully consider and give reasons for not accepting the respondent’s explanations for any problems. This judge’s ruling appears to have “flunked” all of those tests. The idea that a detained unrepresented individual’s omission of an event from the asylum application is a cogent basis for finding him not credible is facially absurd. That’s particularly true where the respondent is not a native English speaker and is held in detention where his ability to prepare, or, indeed, to even understand what is required for a successful asylum application, is intentionally impaired.
Moreover, a simple reference to the most current State Department Country Report (quoted above) would have shown the judge that the respondent’s testimony was highly plausible in light of known country conditions. Indeed, persecution, torture, and abuse are daily occurrences in the DRC.
Additionally, the judge violated due process by requiring a detained individual to get translations of key corroborating documents. It’s simply not possible in most cases. How is a detained unrepresented individual going to find a qualified foreign language translator in the Stewart prison? A judge doing his job fairly would have asked the respondent to summarize the documents and accepted a “proffer;” or he could have had the documents read into the record by the interpreter.
For the purpose of a detained adjudication, I would have assumed that the documents were what the respondent said they were and acted accordingly. If the DHS wanted to challenge the decision, they could have the documents translated. Just one of many problems in purporting to conduct “due process hearings:” in place where due process often can’t really be achieved.
Then, the “rubber stamp” BIA (a/k/a the “Falls Church Adjudication Center”) also “tanked” by not applying its own precedents which should have resulted in a finding that the Immigration Judge’s specious reasoning was “clearly erroneous.”
I heard a number of asylum cases from the DRC during my time on the bench in Arlington. I doubt that I denied any except for individuals who were aggravated felons, engaged in persecution of others, or had provided material support to a terrorist organization. Even those who failed to establish asylum eligibility often had valid claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, given the prevalence of government sponsored or endorsed torture in the DRC. Most DRC asylum cases in Arlington were well-represented, well-documented, and either largely unopposed or not appealed by ICE.
Even without a lawyer, it appears that Bakala’s testimony was credible under the circumstances and that he suffered harm that should have warranted a grant of asylum on account of political opinion based on known country conditions. At one time in Arlington, a case like this with representation probably could have been granted largely by stipulation, with brief testimony, on a “short docket.”
That’s how cases can “move” on the Immigration Court’s crowded dockets without compromising due process or fundamental fairness. Instead, this Administration encourages a biased “haste makes waste” approach, issues statements of strong prejudgment against asylum seekers and their attorneys, motivates judges to cut corners, and enables judges to look for “any reason” to deny asylum and crank out final orders of removal. It’s a “cavalcade of worst practices!”
While some judges courageously resist and insist on “doing the right thing,” others choose or feel compelled to “go along to get along” with the Administration’s unethical (and incompetent) administration of these so-called “courts.” Indeed, today’s Immigration Judges are not even properly trained on how to correctly adjudicate and grant asylum under the generous standards mandated by the law, the Supreme Court, and even the BIA’s (seldom followed) precedent supposedly implementing generous standards following the Supreme Court’s admonishment. It’s an exercise in extreme intellectual dishonesty.
Allowing serious, “life or death” cases to be tried in places like Stewart, notorious for being the home of unsympathetic judges and an inherently coercive atmosphere, intentionally located in and out-of-the-way place where it is hard for attorneys to participate, is a stain on America.
The DOJ has abandoned any semblance of running its “wholly owned courts” in a fair and constitutional manner. Congress, ultimately responsible for creating and countenancing this mess, has long abdicated its duty to establish an independent system that complies with Due Process.
Article III Judges also have been largely complicit in allowing this pathetic imitation of a “court” system to continue operating in a fundamentally unfair and unreasonable manner and spewing forth skewed, unjust, often unlawful, and sometimes deadly results. It’s a national disgrace!
Sadly, the individuals being abused by the Immigration Court system are some of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. That’s what allows such systematic injustice to operate “largely below the radar screen.” However, the individuals who are participating in and enabling such outrageous contempt for the rule of law and human dignity, and thereby violating their oaths of Federal office, will not escape the judgment of history.
Fixing this unfair and intentionally broken system is well within our power as a country. It could be done for much less than $5.7 billion. Put an end to the “New American Gulag” and the “theater of the absurd” masquerading as a “court” that operates within its bowels!
Kristina Davis reports for the Diego Union-Tribune.
SAN DIEGO — Identifying herself as only Wendy B., the teenager described escaping a childhood of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of caretakers in her homeland of El Salvador, only to enter a complicated legal system in the U.S. that she could not comprehend.
She was like most in the U.S. immigration system: She could not afford legal representation, so she had none.
“I remember how scared I was when I first arrived in the United States. I remember not understanding anything,” the girl said. “I remember being given documents and papers in English. People asked me to sign things, but I had no idea what they were.
“I had experienced so many terrible things already, and then I was being put into a situation that was so complicated that I felt hopeless.”
Wendy described what happened next as luck. The Immigrant Defenders Law Center took on her asylum case, which is still pending. Now she is attending high school in Southern California, with dreams of becoming a neurologist. Her hope has been restored.
“There is no way I could have fought my case without a lawyer,” she said. “It’s impossible.”
As Wendy recounted her experience Wednesday on the steps of downtown San Diego’s Civic Center Plaza, she had some high-profile support behind her: actress and activist Alyssa Milano.
The two were joined by immigrant advocates to draw attention to the reality that few migrants are represented by attorneys in immigration proceedings.
Unlike the criminal legal system, which provides defense no matter the ability to pay, the civil immigration legal system does not afford that right. Numerous nonprofit organizations and pro-bono efforts work to fill the gap, but their efforts are nowhere near enough to provide representation for everyone.
Of the migrants detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, 70% to 80% have no legal representation, said Monika Langarica, senior staff attorney at the American Bar Assn.’s Immigration Justice Project.
At the news conference, Milano announced the launch of a fund that will expand such efforts. The SAFE Families Fund will bolster the Vera Institute of Justice’s program to provide legal services to immigrants facing deportation who can’t afford attorneys.
“To truly keep families together, safe and protected, we need to guarantee due process and a fair day in court,” Milano said. “Access to legal counsel is a bedrock American value and is considered a fundamental right for American citizens, but is not currently guaranteed by law for everyone living in this country.”
Milano, who gained fame in the 1980s as a child on the TV sitcom “Who’s the Boss?” has been an outspoken voice on several social causes, from abortion rights to gun control to sexual harassment. It was her tweet that sparked the #MeToo movement, encouraging women to come forward with their experiences of being harassed or abused.
She said she has seen firsthand the violence and poverty forcing families to seek asylum in the U.S., serving as a UNICEF goodwill ambassador for 15 years.
“I have seen the tragic violence and appalling conditions that often make remaining in one’s home country impossible,” Milano said. “I have seen how a mother will do anything she can to keep her family safe, even if it means fleeing the only life she has ever known to face an administration that jeers at her arrival and seeks to detain and rapidly deport her without due process.”
Since 2003, the Department of Justice has funded a legal-orientation program in detention centers that provides basic guidance on how the system works. About 53,000 people participated in the orientation sessions last year — more than 3,500 of them at the Otay Mesa facility.
The goal was to improve efficiency in the immigration courts, which are dealing with a backlog of about 746,000 cases nationwide.
“Experience has shown that the [legal-orientation program] has had positive effects on the immigration court process,” the Justice Department website says about the program, which costs $8 million annually and is run by the New York-based Vera Institute of Justice.
The Trump administration threatened in April to suspend the program while the agency investigated its effectiveness. But the decision received pushback from Congress, and the program has been allowed to continue.
The first phase of the Justice Department’s study of the program, released last week, found that the legal orientations resulted in longer court proceedings and thus longer detention for participants. But those in the program were more likely to be allowed to remain in the U.S.
With lawyers, many asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle have a decent chance of qualifying for asylum. It’s no longer “like shooting fish in a barrel.” No wonder that Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions tries so hard to deny vulnerable individuals the services of counsel, the right to a fair hearing, and summarily remove them to possible death or other serious harm without Due Process. Jeff Sessions and the White Nationalists are the problem; lawyers like the Immigrant Defenders Law Center are the solution.
