SF Chronicle – Page 8 – immigrationcourtside.com

TAL @ CNN: Documents Obtained Under FOIA Lend Support To Widely Held View That Trump Administration’s Decision To End Haitian TPS Driven By Bias Not Facts!

DHS decision to end Haitian immigrant protections questioned

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

Newly released internal documents are raising questions about the Trump administration’s decision to end protections for tens of thousands of Haitian immigrants — and whether the argument that the protections were no longer merited was valid.

Under President Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has been aggressive in ending a number of temporary protected status designations that have been on the books, in some cases, for decades.

Roughly 300,000 people who have lived in the US with legal permission, most of whom have been here for upward of 15-20 years, could have their status pulled in the coming months as the protections expire. In the case of Haiti, nearly 60,000 immigrants are set to see their status expire next year.

The justification from the administration for ending the protections has been that by law, when the conditions from the original disaster that triggered the protections have improved, they must expire. DHS has been clear that it does not believe it can look at the totality of conditions in the country to factor in its decision making.

But the documents released Tuesday as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit raise questions about whether DHS was accurately interpreting information in drawing those conclusions.

The documents suggest DHS contradicted its own staff assessment of Haiti when it opted to end TPS for the country, which was put in place after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The documents also include email correspondence showing Haiti’s deep concern about ending TPS for the country.

While many of the documents are redacted, the release includes a report prepared by staff about the conditions in Haiti, which was included as part of a recommendation by the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/haiti-tps-documents-questions/index.html

And SCOTUS coverage here:http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html

*********************************************

It’s no surprise that Trump Administration immigration policies are based on racial animus and White Nationalism and that they often fly in the face of known conditions in foreign countries. That’s what bias and congenital dishonesty are all about.

Haitian immigrants, who have made great contributions to the United States, have been singled out for poor treatment by past Administrations of both parties. But, they have persevered in the face of adversity both at home and abroad.

Not sure what the remedy would be here even if bias could be proved. The legislation creating TPS status makes country designations or non-designations matters committed to Executive discretion without any judicial review.

So the remedy is probably the same as for most of the Trump Administration’s unlawful and immoral acts: removal of the Administration and its GOP enablers at the ballot box. Even if that eventually happens, it’s not clear whether it will be soon enough to save Haitians in TPS status.

On the other hand, since most of the Haitians in TPS status would be entitled to full hearings before the Immigration Courts, they probably won’t be ordered out of the country any time soon. But, in some cases they could lose their authorization to work.

PWS

04-18-18

TWO FROM TAL @ CNN: DACA Rebirth & Dems Appeal To Ryan On Russian Interference

White House seeks to rekindle immigration debate on Hill

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The White House is quietly feeling the waters on trying for another push on immigration legislation as President Donald Trump continues to up the rhetoric on the issue.

Trump focused on border security and immigration last week, tweeting repeatedly about the need for congressional action and ordering the deployment of the National Guard to the border.

But sources say the there’s more than just tweets, that the White House has been quietly reaching out to allies on the Hill to explore what might be doable. Still, that outreach has to date not included any Democrats and has been unfocused, leaving it unlikely the effort could muster the votes it would need to pass.

“I think there is a real attempt to figure something out — I don’t think they actually know what they want — but there’s a legitimate want to do something on this,” said one senior GOP aide of the White House’s outreach efforts.

The aide characterized the outreach more as floating ideas than coming up with a game plan, and noted that the White House doesn’t seem to be building a coalition to pass the bill yet. Another GOP source agreed any talks are more exploratory than organized.

“It is frustrating that things are so unclear and it would be better to have a coalition that the White House is part of in these conversations, to be a little bit more specific,” the aide said.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican who has worked on unsuccessful bipartisan efforts to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy Trump ended, said on Fox News on Monday that there could be another opportunity.

“The President wants to do a DACA deal — border wall money plus other border security measures are very much on the table,” Graham said. “Our southern border is porous. It needs to be rebuilt strongly and the DACA kids need to have certainty their lives. I hope this President can find Democrats to work with him.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/immigration-white-house-legislation-push/index.html

*****************************************

Dems directly appeal to House Speaker Paul Ryan on election hacking

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The top Democrats on six of the House’s key committees are appealing directly to Speaker Paul Ryan to help them obtain documents from the Trump administration related to election hacking during the 2016 contest.

In a letter sent to the speaker Tuesday morning, the highest-ranking Democrats on the House Oversight, Judiciary, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and House Administration committees implored Ryan to intervene in their ongoing efforts to get the Department of Homeland Security to turn over documents related to the targeting of state election-related systems by Russian hackers.

The Democrats asked the department in October to provide copies of the notifications it sent to the 21 states it identified as the target of Russian government-linked attempts to hack voting-related systems and other related documents.

The Democrats wrote when they did not get adequate responses on an ensuing back-and-forth, they asked House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy to issue a subpoena, but he did not respond.

The Speaker’s office did not immediately respond to CNN request for comment.

Calling the administration’s response “woefully inadequate,” the group said they’ve “exhausted” the options at the committee level and asked Ryan to “personally intervene to protect the integrity and authorities of the House of Representatives.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/election-hacking-letter-ryan-dems/index.html

********************************

Who knows what will happen. But, for “my $.02,” I doubt that either of these has “legs.” First, Trump has “less than zero credibility” on DACA. Second, the House GOP appears to have no desire whatsoever to get to the bottom of the Russia interference, probably correctly fearing that the fingerprints of Trump, his family, and/or his cronies will be all over the place. They might even find the connection to Putin’s personal lobbyist, “Agent Devon.”

No, I don’t have any “hard evidence.” In the end, it’s possible that Mueller will largely exonerate Trump. I know that many believe that 1) Trump isn’t subtile enough to have done anything “under the table,” and 2) if he had actually manipulated the election, he would have proudly tweeted credit for it by now.

But, the great rush to “close out” the Russia investigation and turn the attention elsewhere, along with clear Russia ties to some associated with the campaign who tried to hide those ties, and clear evidence of Russian meddling to elect Trump certainly is enough “smoke” to suggest that we might eventually find “fire.”

PWS

04-10-18

TAL @ CNN TAKES YOU INSIDE THE “BORDER NUMBERS” – Not Surprisingly, Trump & Fellow Restrictionist Idiots Declared Premature “Border Victory” Last Year – Most Real Experts Said That Border Numbers Are Cyclical & Can’t Be Controlled From This End – Now That The Experts Have Been Proved Right, Trump & His DHS Sycophants Have Panicked, Dumping On Women & Children To Hide Their Own Incompetence – But, They Still Ignore The REAL Causes Of Migration!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/border-crossings-spike-trump-effect/index.html

Attempted border crossings surged in March

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The number of migrants trying to illegally cross into the US at the Mexico border spiked dramatically in March, according to numbers released Wednesday as President Donald Trump announced he was sending National Guard troops to the southern border.

It will take a few months to determine if the spike turns into a full-blown surge similar to a migrant crisis that occurred in 2014, but the increase marked a turn for the administration, which a year ago was touting historically low numbers as the “Trump effect” and is now using the statistics as the reason it needs aggressive new immigration enforcement authorities.

The number of people either caught trying to cross the southern border or rejected for admission increased 37% from February into March, a sudden rise in figures that had been holding relatively steady. The increase was driven especially by a jump in the number of people apprehended trying to cross illegally. The number of families and unaccompanied children trying to come into the US increased at a higher rate than the general population.

Last month’s numbers were three times those of March 2017, when crossings were at their lowest in two decades of records.

That year also defied the usual trend in March, when crossings historically increase as weather improves. In 2013 and 2014, a summer surge of migrants, and especially child migrants, caused a crisis of overcrowding at detention centers and humanitarian concerns. The March uptick lagged those years by several thousand, and numbers in April and May will be key to determining whether the increase marks a trend or a one-off development.

A senior administration official had told reporters on a call Wednesday announcing Trump’s move to send National Guard troops to the border that the numbers were up substantially, using them as a data point in what the President called a “crisis” at the southern border in his memo authorizing troops to be deployed. The monthly numbers were released that evening, slightly ahead of schedule.

Standing at the White House podium Wednesday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen noted the historic drop in border crossings that happened in the first few months when Trump took office, calling it the “Trump effect” and touting the work the administration had done on immigration since.

But the numbers by fall had caught up with levels in the last several years under the Obama administration, and Nielsen cited the same statistics Wednesday that the department once cited as proof of its success as the reason more steps were necessary.

“When the President took office, the traffickers, smugglers, TCOs and the illegal aliens that serve as their currency paused to see what our border enforcement efforts would look like and if we could follow through on the deportation and removal,” Nielsen said. “While we have been apprehending aliens at the border with historic efficiency, these illicit smuggling groups saw that our ability to actually remove those who come here illegally did not keep pace. They saw that there were loopholes they could exploit.”

Illegal migration is driven by a number of elements, including what are known as push and pull factors. The administration has been aggressively targeting what it says are pull factors: perceptions that they argue attract immigrants to the US because they believe they will be able to stay. It has discussed the push factors less often, however: the violent and impoverished conditions in Central America that send migrants north out of desperation.

**********************************

Get the full story from the ever-amazing Tal at the above link.

Having stupidly turned down the obvious “Dreamers for Wall” deal that almost anyone else could and would have cut, Trump is desperate to show his base at least some “progress” (or more accurately “regress’) on the border.

The facts are: 1) there’s no border crisis; 2) the only immigration crisis is that Trump, Sessions and the GOP restrictionists keep perpetuating failed immigration policies; 3) we’re effectively at full employment; 4) the current so-called “undocumented” population is overwhelmingly law-abiding; 5) immigration, both legal and undocumented, has been an essential driving force behold America’s continuing economic success; 6) the border is as well controlled as it ever has been or likely ever will be; 7) DHS Enforcement is so grossly overstaffed and the so-called “criminal alien” population is so small that ICE and CBP agents have little legitimate law enforcement work to do and consequently have turned to “busting” gardeners, maids, roofers, nannies, students, kids, and a wide range of other counterproductive activities to justify their continued existence.

We don’t need more immigration enforcement. What we do need is smarter immigration enforcement. But with biased xenophobes like Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and Homan running the show we’re not going to get that without some much-needed “regime change.”

Wake up America! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!

PWS

04-05-18

TOTALLY UNHINGED PREZ PANICS & SENDS NATIONAL GUARD TO BORDER TO “GUARD” US AGAINST A FEW HUNDRED UNARMED (LARGELY) SCARED WOMEN & CHILDREN SEEKING LEGAL REFUGE FROM NORTHERN TRIANGLE! – Wow, What Would This Guy Do If Ever Faced With A REAL Crisis? — Lightweight Sycophant Nielsen Has No Idea How & Why We’re Doing This Except To Read Off Of Moronic Restrictionist Cue Cards! Trump’s Attempt To Manufacture “Border Crisis” To Appease “Base” Both Wasteful & Unconnected To Reality!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/trump-national-guard-troops-border/index.html

Trump admin sending National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

President Donald Trump will sign a proclamation directing agencies deploy the National Guard to the southwest border, Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced Wednesday.

“The President has directed that the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security work together with our governors to deploy the National Guard to our southwest border,” Nielsen said at the White House.

The formal move follows days of public fuming by Trump about immigration policy, during which he has tweeted about immigration legislation in Congress, a caravan of migrants making its way through Mexico and what he calls weak border laws.

Since the passage of the government spending package for the year — which included $1.6 billion for border security but only a few dozen miles of new border barrier construction and a nearly equal amount of replacement fencing — Trump has been critical of Congress for denying him more money. Trump privately floated the idea of funding construction of a southern border wall through the US military budget in conversations with advisers, two sources confirmed to CNN last week — a plan that faces likely insurmountable obstacles in Congress.

Sending National Guard troops to the border is not unprecedented. Both of Trump’s predecessors also did so, though the moves were criticized for being costly and of limited effectiveness.

US law limits what the troops can actually do. Federal law prohibits the military from being used to enforce laws, meaning troops cannot actually participate in immigration enforcement. In the past, they’ve served support roles like training, construction and intelligence gathering.

From 2006-2008, President George W. Bush deployed 6,000 guardsmen to Southern border states, costing $1.2 billion and assisting with 11.7% of total apprehensions at the border and 9.4% of marijuana seized in that time.

From 2010-2012, President Barack Obama sent 1,200 guardsmen to the border to the tune of more than $110 million, and they assisted with 5.9% of the total apprehensions and 2.6% of the marijuana seizures on the border.

CNN’s Catherine Shoichet, Dan Merica and Betsy Klein contributed to this report

*******************************

Read Tal’s complete report at the link.

Here’s what you really need to know:

There’s no “border crisis” facing us except for that created in the minds of Trump and his White Nationalist restrictionist cronies;
The real threat to our “National Security” is Trump and his White Nationalist cabal;
According to all reliable reports, the few hundred “caravan” members who actually get to the border (the majority are “dropping out,” remaining in Mexico, or already have been removed by Mexican authorities) merely intend to apply for asylum, after consulting with lawyers, which they have every right to do under both U.S. and international law;
The more serious issue is that many observers have reported that the Trump DHS is violating U.S. and international laws by refusing to allow individuals who properly present themselves at a port of entry to apply for asylum (there is a law suit currently pending on this issue);
Trump is wasting time, money, personnel, and attention on a false “self-created” crisis that presents no realistic threat to the U.S.;
The Obama and Bush II Administrations did largely the same thing with disastrous results (actually helping to generate the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” culminating in today’s near-700,000 Immigration Court case backlog).

When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

PWS

04-04-18

TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!

How Trump’s policies could worsen the migration issue he says he wants to solve

By Tal Kopan, CNN

President Donald Trump in recent days has decried “weak” US border laws that he says leave the US vulnerable to unfettered immigration — but some of his policies could have the effect of worsening a Central American migrant crisis.

Even as the Department of Homeland Security says the southern border “is more difficult to illegally cross today than ever before,” Trump has stepped up his hardline immigration rhetoric, calling on the US military to guard the US-Mexico border until his long-promised wall is complete. He’s hammered Mexico and other countries for policies that he says are disadvantageous to the US and that send unsavory individuals into the country.

But experts say the President has been pursuing other policies that could substantially harm Central America — and in doing so, he risks creating conditions that generate the exact kind of mass exodus north that he talks about wanting to solve.

Immigration is driven by what are called push and pull factors. The US has been seeking aggressive immigration powers to cut down on what they say are pull factors — the perception that immigrants can live illegally with impunity in the US. But those very policies could affect push factors — the conditions of poverty and violence that drive immigrants elsewhere out of desperation.

“The US sort of talks out of both sides of its mouth,” said Eric Olson, a Latin America expert at the nonpartisan Wilson Center.

“If you’re investing in the region to address the drivers of migration and at the same time pursuing a policy of large-scale deportation, or at least potentially large-scale deportation, and you’re creating more obstacles for people leaving the region for reasons like violence and so on, you’re really creating more instability, not less instability.”

(Much) more: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/trump-migration-central-america/index.html

**********************************************

As Tal says, there’s much, much more to her report on the total stupidity and counter-productivity (not to mention inhumanity) of the Trump Administration’s “Gonzo” enforcement policy. Go on over to CNN at the link to get the full picture.

I’ve been saying for some time now that Trump is pursuing facially “hard-line” policies that are proven failures. Indeed, that forced migration from Central America is a phenomenon that spans four decades and six different Administrations with varying degrees of “same old, same old” would suggest to rational leadership that a different approach is required.

Contrary to Trump’s oft-made bogus claim, his is not the first Administration to try a “close the border, detain and deter” policy. Beginning with Reagan, every Administration has tried largely the same thing (although perhaps without some of the inflammatory and outright racist rhetoric favored by the Trumpsters) and all have failed. I know because I’ve been involved in some aspect of trying to implement those failed policies in at least four of those Administrations, two GOP and two Democrat.

That’s why the trend of migration from the Northern Triangle continues and will continue and fester until we get some enlightened leadership that 1) correctly applies our refugee and protection laws in the generous humanitarian spirit they were intended; and 2) recognizes and starts to deal effectively with the “push” issues in the sending countries.

Contrary to the false narrative spread by current Administration, most Central American refugees that I encountered personally during my career would have preferred to remain in their home countries, if political and country conditions had permitted it. Indeed, many were forced by targeted violence to give up promising careers, studies, or businesses to flee for their lives to the U.S. Here, they often had to perform “entry-level” work to support themselves unless and until they achieved some type of legal status (often TPS , asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, or a green card under NACARA).

Of course, many were denied protection despite having very credible, well-documented fears of harm because they didn’t fit the intentionally restrictive asylum criteria engineered by the BIA over several Administrations largely as a result of political pressure on the system to be “unwelcoming” to Central American migrants. Some of those who returned were killed or disappeared; others were tortured or attacked again and forced to flee second or third times, now bearing the scars or injuries to prove their cases — only as “prior deportees” they were no longer eligible for asylum but had to accept withholding of removal or CAT deferral.

Nobody in this Administration, and sadly relatively few in Congress and among the public, are willing to deal honestly with the phenomenon of Central American migration and the “push factors” that will never, ever be controlled by more restrictive laws, more violations of statutory, Constitutional, and international rights, inhumane and life-threatening detention , and racist rhetoric. Nor will it be stopped by any bogus “Wall.”

As I’ve said before, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!” If only someone would listen!

PWS

04-04-18

AS EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S BIAS AND INCOMPETENCE TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM MOUNTS, HE “GOES GONZO” ON US IMMIGRATION JUDGES & IMMIGRANTS SEEKING JUSTICE — Dropping All Pretensions That These Are Anything Other Than “Kangaroo Courts,” Gonzo Imposes Assembly Line Quotas That Are Unconstitutional On Their Face!

HERE ARE THE EOIR (SESSIONS) MEMOS:

from Asso Press – 03-30-2018 McHenry – IJ Performance Metrics

03-30-2018 EOIR – PWP Element 3 new

********************************************

Both the BIA and the Federal Courts have found that “case completion goals” can’t be used as the sole basis for denying a continuance. , 531 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008); Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). Rather, continuance decisions must be made case-by-case on the basis of a careful consideration and weighing of all relevant factors. By purporting to make the mathematical formulas mandatory rather than goals, the Attorney General only compounds the problem.
- Here are copies of the Hashmi cases:
- 3rd on case completion 063934p
- 3640–Hashmi
Neither Sessions nor Director McHenry has ever served as a U.S. Immigration Judge. They both are totally unqualified to determine “performance criteria” for judges supposedly exercising “independent judgment and discretion.” Indeed, Sessions was once nominated for a Federal District Judgeship but was found unqualified because of his record of racially tinged bias. He has no business being in change of any judiciary.
Numerical quotas simply have no place in a fair judicial system. Having worked with judges in both a supervisory and a collegial capacity for over two decades, my observation is that all good judges do not work at the same pace. Some simply take more time than others to reach a fair result. That doesn’t mean that they are less qualified, less hard-working, or less fair. Indeed in some cases those who take longer to reach a decision are better and more careful judges than those who are more “productive.”
The use of appeal statistics is particularly bogus. I had some cases where I was reversed by the BIA only to be vindicated by the Court of Appeals. In other cases, I was reversed by the Court of Appeals for faithfully applying a BIA precedent that was found to be erroneous. I also had cases while I was an appellate judge on the BIA where my dissenting view was ultimately found by the Court of Appeals be correct and the majority’s view erroneous .
Justice is not a “widget” that can be subjected to “performance standards” by politicos who are not judges. This is all a “smokescreen.” The real problem plaguing the Immigration Court system starts with unqualified politicos interfering in proper docket management and decision-making by judges. Jeff Sessions is a prime example of all that is wrong with the current Immigration Court system.
Contrary to the DOJ’s claim, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) never agreed to these so-called “performance metrics.” I was actually part of the NAIJ team that negotiated the existing performance evaluation system. We were assured by management at that time that while non-binding “goals and timetables” might be developed by the agency as informal guidance, they were not “numerical quotas” and would not be used in determining individual performance.

******************************

Here’s an article by Tal Kopan @ CNN on the latest memos:

Justice Department rolls out case quotas for immigration judges

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Department of Justice has announced it will evaluate immigration judges on how many cases they close and how fast they hear cases, a move that judges and advocates criticize as potentially jeopardizing the courts’ fairness and perhaps leading to far more deportations.

The policy has been in the works for months, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration have been working to assert more influence over the immigration courts, or the separate court system built just for hearing cases about whether noncitizens have a claim to stay in the US.

US law gives the attorney general broad and substantial power to oversee and overrule these courts, as opposed to the civil and criminal US justice system, which is an independent branch of government. In the immigration courts, judges are employees of the Department of Justice.

Sessions has been testing the limits of that authority in multiple ways, and in a memo Friday, the director of the immigration courts informed judges they would now be evaluated on a set of metrics including the speed and volume of cases heard.

The Justice Department says the move is designed to make the system more efficient. The immigration courts have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, and it can take years for an immigrant’s case to work its way to completion. In that time, the individuals build lives in the US, and critics point to the immigration courts’ backlog as a major factor in the number of undocumented immigrants living in the US.

“These performance metrics, which were agreed to by the immigration judge union that is now condemning them, are designed to increase productivity and efficiency in the system without compromising due process,” a Justice Department official said of the memo. The official added that any judges who fail to meet performance goals would be able to present extenuating circumstances to the Justice Department.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/politics/immigration-judges-quota/index.html

********************************************

There are an estimated eleven million undocumented individuals living in the United States. That population has grown up over decades primarily as the result of poorly designed and unrealistically restrictive laws that failed to recognize the need of U.S. employers for immigrant labor and further threw up artificial roadblocks to individuals already in the U.S. obtaining legal status. To claim that the Immigration Courts are a “major cause” of this accumulated undocumented population is simply preposterous.

PWS

04-03-18

HERE’S AN INFO PACKED “TRIPLE HEADER” FROM TAL @ CNN: Trump Administration Moves To Undermine American Values On Three Fronts: Detention Of Pregnant Women, Targeting U.S. Citizen Children In Need, & Extreme Vetting!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/ice-immigration-pregnant-women/index.html

ICE rolls back pregnant detainee release policy

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration will no longer seek to automatically release pregnant immigrants from detention — a move in line with the overall efforts by the administration to hold far more immigrants in custody than its predecessors.

The change in policy was sent by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to Congress on Thursday morning and obtained by CNN.

According to the new directive, immigration officers will no longer default to trying to release pregnant women who fall into immigration custody, either because they are undocumented or otherwise subject to deportation. The Obama administration policy urged officers to presume a pregnant woman could be released except for extreme circumstances.

But a FAQ sent with the directive makes clear that ICE is not going to detain all pregnant immigrants. The policy will require a case-by-case evaluation, the FAQ explains, and will keep in custody “only those whose detention is necessary to effectuate removal, as well as those deemed a flight risk or danger to the community.”

ICE will also lean towards releasing pregnant women if they are in their third trimester, and will also make an effort for detention facilities to provide services to pregnant women and parents.

The move follows controversial efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to keep unaccompanied minor immigrants in custody rather than releasing them to obtain abortions, a policy that has been the subject of intense litigation.

**********************************************

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/immigrants-rejected-government-benefits/index.html

White House reviewing plan to restrict immigrants’ use of government programs

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The White House is reviewing a proposal that could penalize immigrants who use certain government programs, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Thursday.

The proposed rule change would substantially expand the type of benefits that could be considered as grounds to reject any immigrants’ application to extend their stay in the US or become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen.

The move continues efforts by the Trump administration to overhaul the US immigration system and the changes could have the effect of substantially tipping the scales in favor of high-income immigrants — all without requiring an act of Congress. The changes could amount to an effective income test of immigrants to the US, critics say.

The expansion would going forward include programs like children’s health insurance, tax credits and some forms of Medicaid as black marks against immigrants seeking to change their status to stay.

By including benefits used by family members of the immigrants, the proposal could also apply to benefits being used by US citizens, who may be the spouse or child of the immigrant applying for status

DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton said the proposed rule had been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget — the final step of the approval process before it’s released.

Houlton would not comment on the specifics of the proposal, but did said that DHS is “committed to enforcing existing immigration law … and part of that is respecting taxpayer dollars.”

CNN first reported on the changes as they were in development last month. The Washington Post obtained a more recent version of the proposal on Wednesday.

Why the change matters

US law authorizes authorities to reject immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge” — or dependent on government.

Since the 1990s, that has meant that immigrants shouldn’t use so-called “cash benefits,” but a large number of programs were exempt from consideration.

But the new rule would include programs such as some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, subsidized health care under Obamacare and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to the latest draft obtained by the Post.

In one change from the earlier draft obtained by CNN, educational programs that benefit children, including Head Start, will not be included under the administration’s plan. Programs like veteran’s benefits that individuals earn would also be excluded.

The rule would not explicitly prohibit immigrants or their families from accepting the benefits. Rather, it authorizes the officers who evaluate their applications for things like green cards and residency visas to count the use of these programs against the immigrant, and gives them authority to deny the immigrants visas on these grounds — even if the program was used by a family member.

The decision sets up a difficult scenario for immigrants who hope to stay in the US. If they accept any public benefits — or their family members do — they could potentially be denied future abilities to stay. That includes decisions about whether to use health insurance subsidies for them or their children, or tax credits they qualify for otherwise.

Immigrants are no more likely to qualify for these programs than the native US population, according to tables included in the documents, the Post reported. There is no substantial difference in the rate between the two groups — in some cases foreign-born residents are slightly more likely to use a program, but in some cases the native-born population is, according to the tabulations.

*****************************************************

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/immigrants-social-media-information/index.html

US to require immigrants to turn over social media handles

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration plans to require immigrants applying to come to the United States to submit five years of social media history, it announced Thursday, setting up a potential scouring of their Twitter and Facebook histories.

The move follows the administration’s emphasis on “extreme vetting” of would-be immigrants to the US, and is an extension of efforts by the previous administration to more closely scrutinize social media after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

According to notices submitted by the State Department on Thursday, set for formal publication on Friday, the government plans to require nearly all visa applicants to the US to submit five years of social media handles for specific platforms identified by the government — and with an option to list handles for other platforms not explicitly required.

The administration expects the move to affect nearly 15 million would-be immigrants to the United States, according to the documents. That would include applicants for legal permanent residency. There are exemptions for diplomatic and official visas, the State Department said.

The decision will not take effect immediately — the publication of the planned change to visa applications on Friday will start a 60-day clock for the public to comment on the move.

The potential scouring of social media postings by potential immigrants is sure to rankle privacy and civil liberties advocates, who have been vocal in opposing such moves going back to efforts by the Obama administration to collect such information on a more selective and voluntary basis.

Critics complain the moves, amid broader efforts by the administration, are not only invasive on privacy grounds, but also effectively limit legal immigration to the US by slowing the process down, making it more burdensome and making it more difficult to be accepted for a visa.

Federal authorities argue the moves are necessary for national security.

In addition to requiring the five years of social media history, the application will also ask for previous telephone numbers, email addresses, prior immigration violations and any family history of involvement in terrorist activities, according to the notice.

Since its early days, the administration has been telegraphing a desire to more closely dig through the backgrounds and social media histories of foreign travelers, but Thursday’s move is the first time that it will formally require virtually all applicants to come to the US to disclose that information.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015, greater attention was placed on immigrants’ social media use, when it was revealed that one of the attackers had advocated jihad in posts on a private social media account under a pseudonym that authorities did not find before allowing her to come to the US.

The move by the Trump administration stops short of requiring passwords or access to those social media accounts, although then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly suggested last year that it was being considered.

The administration has been pursuing “extreme vetting” of foreigners as a centerpiece of its immigration and national security policy, including through the contentious travel ban that remains the subject of heavy litigation.

****************************************************

The Administration’s war on immigrants, America, and American values continues!

PWS

03-30-18

TAL @ CNN: Administration’s Plan To Request Citizenship Information In Census Provokes New Litigation!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/census-commerce-department-immigration-california/index.html

California sues over Census citizenship question

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Progressives, states and civil rights advocates are preparing a flurry of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the next census, saying the move will penalize immigrants and threaten civil rights.

The late Monday move from the Commerce Department, which it said came in response a request by the Justice Department, would restore a question about citizenship that has not appeared on the census since the 1950s. The administration said the data was necessary to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The state of California immediately challenged the plan in federal court.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla trashed the move as anti-immigrant.

“The citizenship question is the latest attempt by President Trump to stoke the fires of anti-immigrant hostility,” Padilla said in a statement. “Now, in one fell swoop, the US Commerce Department has ignored its own protocols and years of preparation in a concerted effort to suppress a fair and accurate census count from our diverse communities. The administration’s claim that it is simply seeking to protect voting rights is not only laughable, but contemptible.”

Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder also blasted the move and said his organization, which focuses on voting enfranchisement and redistricting, would also pursue litigation against what he called an “irresponsible decision.”

Holder said contrary to the rationale presented by the Justice Department, Holder said he and other modern-era attorneys general were “perfectly” able to handle those legal matters without such a question on the Census.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Make no mistake — this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.”

Critics of the move say that including such a question on a government survey will scare non-citizens and vulnerable immigrant communities into under-reporting. By undercounting these populations, they argue, there will be a major impact that follows on voting and federal funds.

Because the once-a-decade census is used to determine congressional and political districts and to dole out federal resources, an undercount in heavily immigrant areas could substantially impact certain states and major cities and potentially their representation at the federal level.

The question has not been on the full census since the 1950s, but does appear on the yearly American Community Survey administered by the Census Bureau to give a fuller picture of life in America and the population.

The Commerce Department said the decision came after a “thorough review” of the request from the Justice Department. The priority, Commerce said, was “obtaining complete and accurate data.”

“Having citizenship data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the VRA, and Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the statement said.

Becerra and his state have been central to virtually every legal challenge of the Trump administration on issues ranging from immigration, to the environment, to health care. The Justice Department has also sued California over its so-called sanctuary policies to protect immigrants.

More challenges could soon follow.

Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, a nonprofit that works on issues of justice and civil rights, said the question had no place in the Census.

“Our Constitution requires a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the country, no matter her or his citizenship status. The administration’s decision to add a citizenship question is at best a dramatic misstep, and at worst a politically-motivated move that will undermine a fair and accurate census,” Weiser said. “This question is a dangerous move that could lead to a serious skewing of the final census results, which would have a deleterious effect on our system of representative democracy. We urge the administration to reconsider.”

**********************************

The idea that the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions wants this information to enforce the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) is preposterous on its face! So far, the only interest that Sessions and his crew at the DOJ have shown in the VRA is to insure that White GOP voters are enfranchised and that African-Americans and other minorities are disenfranchised.

Because all individuals in a congressional district are entitled to representation, regardless of citizenship status or other legal status, promoting an undercount (which is what the Administration obviously intends) will work to the disadvantage of those districts with large populations of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

Stay tuned. There probably are many more similar suits to come, and “Tal is on the ball” to keep us completely informed.

PWS

03-27-18

TAL @ CNN: A “Gold Star Father” Urges The Supremes To Reject Discriminatory “Muslim Ban!”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/khizr-khan-brief-muslim-travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Tal writes:

“Washington (CNN)Gold Star father Khizr Khan wrote a personal appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday to strike down President Donald Trump’s travel ban, using his family’s story to argue the ban is unconstitutional and “desecrates” his son’s sacrifice.

Known for his impassioned speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khan is a lawyer and the father of Capt. Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed when he moved to stop a car containing suicide bombers headed toward his base in Iraq, for which he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.

Originally from Pakistan and a Muslim, Khan filed the legal brief on Friday because, in his view, Trump’s travel ban “not only desecrates Humayun Khan’s service and sacrifice as a Muslim- American officer in the United States Army, but also violates Khizr Khan’s own constitutional rights,” his attorney wrote in the brief.

He lost his son in Iraq and drew Trump’s ire. Now hear this Muslim American’s Veterans Day message.

The brief describes the Khan family’s history and the service of Humayun Khan, mentioning as well Khan’s speech at the DNC where he held up a pocket Constitution and emotionally asked Trump if he’d read it.

The brief also notes Trump’s comments on the campaign trail that he wanted to institute a “Muslim ban,” a key component of critics’ arguments that the administration’s travel ban is a thinly veiled attempt to target Muslims.

Supreme Court sets travel ban arguments for final day of term

“The taint of discrimination has not been washed away,” the brief argues, saying the latest travel ban and its predecessors all flow from that original idea.

“The message is that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders,” it continues. “And that message has been received loud and clear — not only by Muslims like Mr. Khan, but by those who have been denigrating and attacking Muslims with increasing frequency and vehemence since President Trump called for, and then began trying to implement, his unconstitutional Muslim Ban.”

Gold Star father Khizr Khan slams John Kelly’s defense of Trump

“The message is that Muslims are outsiders, regardless of the depth of their devotion to the Constitution, and despite paying the ultimate price to defend it. That message is painfully clear to Mr. Khan,” the brief states.

Khan’s attorney, Dan Jackson, said the Gold Star father felt compelled to weigh in because of the impact of the travel ban on his son’s legacy, and added Khan has a “fierce devotion” to the Constitution.”

*********************************

Go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s complete article.

The rich irony here is that the individuals who “designed” the “travel ban” — Trump, Sessions, Miller — have shown a total disdain for our Constitution. Time and time again, they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of everyone in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or status. What kind of country disrespects the memory of those who have died in its defense while allowing itself to be governed by biased, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest individuals who reject the very notion of a Constitutional republic?

PWS

03-24-18

TAL @ CNN SUMMARIZES ALL THE “DACA DEALS” THAT TRUMP & THE GOP HAVE TORPEDOED — “As Congress left town increasingly unlikely to pass any major immigration legislation before November’s midterms, the White House has repeatedly rejected deals to fix DACA, the Obama-era policy he ended then implored Congress to save.”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/daca-rejected-deals-trump/index.html

Here’s Tal’s report:

“Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump argued Friday that Democrats have stood in the way of DACA recipients gaining permanent legal status, while casting Republicans as would-be saviors.

“The Republicans are with you, they want to get your situation taken care of,” Trump said at the White House, as he complained about the $1.3 trillion spending bill program, speaking directly to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. “The Democrats fought us, they just fought every single inch of the way. They did not want DACA in this bill.”

But as Congress left town increasingly unlikely to pass any major immigration legislation before November’s midterms, the White House has repeatedly rejected deals to fix DACA, the Obama-era policy he ended then implored Congress to save.

Here’s a timeline of DACA under Trump:

September 5, 2017: Trump announced an end to the DACA program, which protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation. President Barack Obama instituted the work permits and protections in 2012.

September 13: Trump has dinner with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi at the White House, after which the two Democrats say they agreed in broad strokes to a DACA-border security deal that doesn’t include Trump’s wall. Trump initially seems on the same page, then the White House and Republicans walk it back. Trump tweets about how “good, educated and accomplished” DACA recipients are.

October 8: The White House unveils what it calls its priorities for a DACA deal, a laundry list of aggressive conservative immigration measures that Democrats and a handful of Republicans rejected as rife with poison pills.

November 1: After a terrorist attack in New York City, Trump begins to emphasize ending the diversity visa lottery and family-based migration.

November 2: Republican lawmakers meet with Trump at the White House and rule out attaching any DACA deal to year-end funding bill before a possible shutdown.

December 21: Lawmakers pass government funding into the new year and leave town without a deal, despite Democrats’ previous pledges to not go home without one.

January 9: Trump holds bipartisan meeting at the White House that cameras televise for nearly an hour. He indicates multiple times he is willing to compromise on DACA, despite some contradictions within the meetings, and says “when this group comes back — hopefully with an agreement — this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it.” The so-called “four pillars” also come out of this meeting — that a deal shall include DACA, family-based migration, the diversity lottery and border security.

January 9: Federal court puts hold on Trump’s plan to end DACA, ordering renewals of permits to continue but no new applications.

January 11: After months of meetings, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Lindsey Graham go to the White House to propose to Trump a compromise worked out by their group of six bipartisan senators. The offer includes a path to citizenship for eligible young immigrants, the first year of Trump’s border wall funding, ending the diversity visa lottery and reallocating those visas, and restricting the ability of former DACA recipients to sponsor family.

Trump and the White House invite hardline Republicans to the meeting and he rejects the deal, making his now-infamous “shithole countries” comment in the process.

January 19: House before a government funding deadline, Schumer and Trump meet for lunch at the White House. Schumer offered Trump the upwards of $20 billion he wanted for his border wall in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for the eligible immigrant population. The deal is rejected, and government shuts down at midnight.

January 22: Government reopens after Republicans Graham and Jeff Flake secure a public commitment from Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell to hold a future immigration floor vote. Bipartisan negotiations resume.

January 25: White House releases its proposal for a DACA deal under the four pillars, which includes a generous path to citizenship for eligible immigrants, but also a number of impossible-to-swallow provisions for Democrats and some Republicans under the auspices of family-based migration and border security.

February 14: A bipartisan group of senators unveils a compromise plan, which includes $25 billion for the border, a pathway to citizenship for the immigrants, cuts to one slim category of family-based migration and prevents the parents who brought their children to the US illegally from ever being sponsored for citizenship by those children.

February 15: White House goes all out to stop the bipartisan compromise deal, which fails to get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, with 54 votes.

February 26: Supreme Court declines to take up an immediate appeal of court decisions resuming DACA renewals, ensuring no deportations of DACA recipients for months and taking pressure of Congress.

March 14: With roughly a week to go before the major government spending package known as the omnibus must pass, White House suddenly signals a desire for a DACA-border deal. Publicly, the White House says they oppose a temporary fix.

March 22: Congress passes an omnibus without DACA, virtually ensuring it will not be addressed before midterms.

March 23: Trump signs the omnibus, rails on Democrats for, he says, not caring about DACA.

CNN’s Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.”

***********************************

Thanks, Tal for your very succinct, accessible reporting “setting the record straight” on DACA.

Trump could, and should have engineered full DACA relief with no “tradeoffs.” since the DACA folks are a great benefit to America, why would we need any “tradeoffs?” And, I believe that a “straight DACA relief bill” could have passed both Houses and been signed into law if Trump had backed it, although it might not have had “majority GOP support.” All polls show that the vast majority of Americans favor status for DACA recipients.

Moreover, the Dems probably would have given Trump at least something he could have claimed as a “Wall victory” thrown in. In the end, Trump’s insistence that the DACA bill had to contain other unneeded and highly inappropriate restrictions on legal immigration and anti-Due Process measures directed at children at the border killed the effort.

PWS

03-24-18

GONZO’S WORLD: ICE SPOKESMAN QUITS AFTER BEING ORDERED TO LIE IN SUPPORT OF SESSIONS/HOMAN FALSE NARRATIVE ON IMMIGRANTS & CRIME — “I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts!”

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

James Hohmann reports in the Washington Post “Daily 202:”

Jeff Sessions attacked Oakland’s mayor in a speech last week in Sacramento. An ICE spokesman has resigned over what he says were false statements by the attorney general. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

— “The San Francisco spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resigned over what he described as ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ statements made by top-ranking officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and ICE Acting Director Thomas D. Homan,”Meagan Flynn reports. “The now-former spokesman, James Schwab, told news outlets late Monday that his resignation stemmed from statements by Homan and Sessions that potentially hundreds of ‘criminal aliens’ evaded ICE during a Northern California raid in February because Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned the immigrant community in advance. Schwab said he pushed back on that characterization — but said ICE instructed him to ‘deflect’ questions from the press.”

“I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit. … I didn’t feel like fabricating the truth to defend ourselves against her actions was the way to go about it.”

***********************************

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

It’s not like James Schwab and James Hohmann are the only ones calling out Trump & Sessions for their consistent lies and misrepresentations about immigration. As reported by the always amazing Tal Kopan @ CNN last week, California Governor Jerry Brown essentially issued the same warning that you can’t believe much of anything that comes out of our Attorney General’s mouth:

“California Gov. Jerry Brown fired back at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump on Wednesday after their lawsuit challenging the state’s immigration laws, calling the administration “full of liars” and repeatedly referencing the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Jeff Sessions takes immigration fight to California, announces lawsuit

The Democratic governor was speaking on the heels of Sessions’ visit to Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against California for its so-called sanctuary policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In slamming Sessions’ appearance as a “political stunt” that was full of “lies” and untruths, Brown needled Sessions personally and his relationship with the President, which is famously fraught.

“I do think this is pure red meat for the base, and I would assume — this is pure speculation — that Jeff thinks Donald will be happier with him and I bet Donald will be tweeting his joy with this stunt,” Brown said.”

************************************

You can read both Hohmann’s and Tal’s complete articles at the links.

Sadly, the Trump Administration as a whole, and Jeff Sessions in particular, have made lies, misrepresentations, and knowingly false narratives a staple of their tortured and often illegal immigration policies. I think that, rather than “biased Federal Judges” as disingenuously claimed by Sessions, has led to an impressive string of losses for the Administration and the DOJ in the lower Federal Courts on immigration issues.

I predict that the losing has just begun. If and when Sessions follows through on his apparent plan to destroy the U.S. Immigration Court System, literally thousands of cases are likely to be sent back or permanently blocked by legal rulings in the Circuit Courts.

Although Sessions arrogantly claims that a majority of the Supremes are “in the Administration’s pocket” and therefore can be counted on to overrule the Circuits, fact is that the Supremes can’t and won’t take every big immigration case the Government loses. So, Trump and Sessions better get used to “living with defeat.” It’s going to become a way of life, as our immigration and justice systems deteriorate under this Administration’s toxic leadership.

PWS

03-14-18

TAL @ CNN: ADVOCATES FEAR SESSIONS’S ACTIONS THREATEN ENTIRE U.S. ASYLUM SYSTEM!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/sessions-immigrant-domestic-violence-victims/index.html

Sessions reviewing immigrant abuse victims’ protections

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent move to re-open a court decision protecting domestic violence victims has advocates concerned that women and children fleeing abuse in their home countries could no longer seek shelter in the US.

Sessions last week announced he was reviewing the immigration court decision without making public what the case was about. In a quirk of immigration court law, decisions by the appellate court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, are reviewable by the attorney general.

The previously unpublished decision has been obtained by CNN and advocacy groups, and the facts of the case has human rights advocates concerned Sessions could be moving to undercut domestic violence victims’ claims for protections in the US.

The issue is mired in the legal details of asylum — a type of protection for immigrants who come to the US fleeing persecution back home. There are a few categories that have to be proven in order to be granted asylum, including being part of a “particular social group” that has a reason to fear persecution and whose government can’t or won’t adequately protect them.

Sessions has asked for arguments on the case, known as the “Matter of AB-” based on the redacted name of the individual bringing the case, on “whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.”

Without knowing the underlying case, many experts had believed the issue related to gang violence — a major issue in Central America that pushes immigrants to try to enter the US illegally.

But though the case deals with a woman from gang violence-plagued El Salvador, the issue is instead her rape and physical and emotional abuse by her ex-husband. The Board of Immigration Appeals found in the case that the woman does qualify for asylum, as women in El Salvador with children in common are often unable to leave their relationships and the government has been found “minimally” able to stop domestic violence.

“We’re very concerned about what this could mean for the women who flee their homes, leaving everything behind — their community, parents, and children — in order to get to safety,” said Archi Pyati, chief of policy and programs for the Tahirih Justice Center, which protects and advocates for immigrant women and girls fleeing violence. “In some countries, the government will do nothing to stop a man from abusing a woman. …Right now, the attorney general is signaling that he may reconsider whether we as a nation are willing to stand up for what is right and offer a beacon of hope to those women with nowhere else to go.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on the case now that its details were released. Before it was obtained, a department official would only say that Sessions had referred the case to himself due to a “lack of clarity” in the court system on the subject of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision.

In 2014, the agency issued a similar decision for Guatemalan women in a case that set precedent for lower immigration courts.

Sessions’ decision to wade into the case has potentially far-reaching implications. As attorney general, he has the legal authority to single-handedly overturn the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Once he does, the only authority who can overrule him are the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court, if an immigrant appeals their case to them.

If Sessions decides that victims of crime cannot qualify as a “particular social group,” hypothetically, it could mean foreign domestic violence victims are not able to seek protections from their abusive spouses in the US.

Sessions has alarmed advocates by referring himself two asylum cases in the past week. While he didn’t make a decision on the Matter of AB-, in the other case, he overruled the Board of Immigration Appeals on a decision that had determined all asylum cases are entitled to a hearing before their bid for protections is rejected. Sessions’ move means that asylum cases could now be rejected without those immigrants getting an opportunity to argue their case in court; judges can make decisions based on briefs.

********************************************

With each Sessions anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-due-process action, the farce and charade of due process for migrants in the Sessions-controlled U.S. Immigration System becomes more pronounced. And, with the GOP in control of all three political branches of the Government, responsible oversight of Executive Branch actions and overreaching has simply ceased to exist. Yeah, the Article III courts are still out there. But, you can bet that Trump, Sessions, and the GOP Senators are doing their very best to co-opt the Federal Courts with appointees committed to an extreme right-wing agenda.

PWS

03-13-18

TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/sessions-immigration-appeals-decision/index.html

Sessions tests limits of immigration powers with asylum moves
Tal Kopan
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 8:01 AM ET, Sat March 10, 2018

Washington (CNN)The US immigration courts are set up to give the attorney general substantial power to almost single-handedly direct how immigration law is interpreted in this country — and Jeff Sessions is embracing that authority.

Sessions quietly moved this week to adjust the way asylum cases are decided in the immigration courts, an effort that has the potential to test the limits of the attorney general’s power to dictate whether immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in the US and, immigration advocates fear, could make it much harder for would-be asylees to make their cases to stay here.
Sessions used a lesser-known authority this week to refer to himself two decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate level of the immigration courts. Both deal with asylum claims — the right of immigrants who are at the border or in the US to stay based on fear of persecution back home.

In one case, Sessions reached into the Board of Immigration Appeals archives and overturned a ruling from 2014 — a precedent-setting decision that all asylum cases are entitled to a hearing before their claims can be rejected. In the other, Sessions is asking for briefs on an unpublished opinion as to how much the threat of being the victim of a crime can qualify for asylum. The latter has groups puzzled and concerned, as the underlying case remains confidential, per the Justice Department, and thus the potential implications are harder to discern. Experts suspect the interest has to do with whether fear of gang violence — a major issue in Central America — can support asylum claims.
A Justice official would say only on the latter case that the department is considering the issue due to a “lack of clarity” in the court system on the subject. On the former, spokesman Devin O’Malley said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 2014 holding “added unnecessary cases to the dockets of immigration judges who are working hard to reduce an already large immigration court backlog.”
Tightening asylum
Sessions referring the cases to himself follows other efforts during his tenure to influence the courts, the Justice Department says, in an effort to make them quicker and more efficient. In addition to expanding the number of Board of Immigration Appeals judges and hiring immigration judges at all levels at a rapid clip, the Justice Department has rolled out guidance and policies to try to move cases more quickly through the system, including possible performance measures that have the judges’ union concerned they could be evaluated on the number of closed cases.

“What is he up to? That would be speculation to say, but definitely there have been moves in the name of efficiency that, if not implemented correctly, could jeopardize due process,” said Rená Cutlip-Mason, until last year a Justice Department immigration courts official and now a leader at the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that supports immigrant women and girls fleeing violence.
“I think it’s important that the courts balance efficiencies with due process, and any efforts that are made, I think, need to be made with that in mind,” she added.
The Board of Immigration Appeals decisions could allow Sessions to make it much harder to seek asylum in the US.
Asylum is a favorite target of immigration hardliners, who argue that because of the years-long backlog to hear cases, immigrants are coached to make asylum claims for what’s billed as a guaranteed free pass to stay in the country illegally.
Advocates, however, say the vast majority of asylum claims are legitimate and that trying to stack the decks against immigrants fleeing dangerous situations is immoral and contrary to international law. Making the process quicker, they argue, makes it harder for asylum seekers — who are often traumatized, unfamiliar with English and US law, and may not have advanced education — to secure legal representation to help make their cases. The immigration courts allow immigrants to have counsel but no legal assistance is provided by the government, unlike in criminal courts.
Reshaping the immigration courts
Beyond asylum, Sessions’ efforts could have far-reaching implications for the entire immigration system, and illustrate the unique nature of the immigration court system, which gives him near singular authority to interpret immigration laws.
Immigration cases are heard outside of the broader federal court system. The immigration courts operate as the trial- or district-level equivalent and the Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the appellate- or circuit court-level. Both are staffed with judges selected by the attorney general, who do not require any third-party confirmation.
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
In this system, the attorney general him or herself sits at the Supreme Court’s level, with even more authority than the high court to handpick decisions. The attorney general has the authority to refer any Board of Immigration Appeals decision to his or her office for review, and can single-handedly overturn decisions and set interpretations of immigration law that become precedent followed by the immigration courts.
The power is not absolute — immigrants can appeal their cases to the federal circuit courts, and at times those courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court will overrule immigration courts’ or Justice Department decisions. That’s especially true when cases deal with constitutional rights, said former Obama administration Justice Department immigration official Leon Fresco. Fresco added that the federal courts’ deference to the immigration courts’ interpretation of the law has decreased in the past 10 years, though that could change as more of the President’s chosen judges are added to the bench.
But Sessions could be on track to test the limits of his power, and the moves might set up further intense litigation on the subject.
“From what I can see, Sessions is really testing how far those powers really go,” said Cutlip-Mason. “The fact that the attorney general can have this much power is a very interesting way that the system’s been set up.”
Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served for years in federal immigration agencies and the immigration courts, said that to say the immigration courts are full due process is “sort of a bait and switch.” He says despite the presentation of the courts’ decisions externally, the message to immigration judges internally is that they work for the attorney general.
“I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

********************************

The idea that the U.S. Immigration Courts can fairly adjudicate asylum cases and provide Due Process to migrants with Jeff Sessions in charge is a bad joke.

America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

PWS

03-11–17

TAL @ CNN – When It Comes To DACA, DOJ Appears To Be Rewriting History – There Was Nothing “Discretionary” About Sessions’s Advice to DHS To Terminate Program!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/daca-decision-trump-win/index.html

Judge sides with Trump on DACA, but blasts White House, Congress for inaction

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration won a victory in court Monday on its plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but not before a federal judge criticized the White House and Congress for failing to work together.

The ruling is a relatively symbolic win after two other federal courts have already halted the President’s effort to end the program nationwide.

Still, the administration is hailing the ruling as evidence that it has the authority to terminate DACA, a program that protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, as President Donald Trump decided in September.

In a 30-page opinion, Maryland District Judge Roger Titus rejected a challenge to the termination of DACA, saying the administration did in fact have a “reasonable” justification given it concluded the program was likely unlawful.

Previous judges have found the opposite — that there’s a plausible argument the government’s reasoning in this case was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Supreme Court last week declined the administration’s request to leapfrog the appellate courts and immediately consider the other judges’ rulings, meaning until a further court rules in what will likely be several months, the administration must continue renewing two-year DACA permits.

Titus began his opinion with an unusual lamentation of the partisan nature of politics in this country, criticizing Congress and the administrations’ inaction on a permanent solution for DACA participants.

“This case is yet another example of the damaging fallout that results from excessive political partisanship,” Titus wrote.

“The highly politicized debate surrounding the DACA program has thus far produced only rancor and accusations,” he added. “During the recent debate over the rescission of DACA, the program even turned into a bargaining chip that resulted in a brief shutdown of the entire federal government earlier this year.”

He added: “The result of this case is not one that this court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. This court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley called the decision “good news” and criticized the rebukes from previous judges.

“The Department of Justice has long maintained that DHS acted within its lawful authority in making the discretionary decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner, and we welcome the good news today that the district court in Maryland strongly agrees,” O’Malley said. “Today’s decision also highlights a serious problem with the disturbing growth in the use of nationwide injunctions, which causes the Maryland court’s correct judgment in favor of the government to be undermined by the overbroad injunctions that have been entered by courts in other states.”

***************************************

Contrary to the DOJ’s current claim, that the decision to terminate DACA was “discretionary,” Sessions has consistently taken the position that the DACA program was “illegal” and therefore the Administration had no choice but to terminate it. Here’s a copy of his letter to then Acting DHS Secretary Duke. No mention of “discretion” that I can find:

ag_letter_re_daca

Moreover, contrary to some of the Administration’s blabber, Judge Titus did not endorse Sessions’s view that DACA was illegal. Rather the Judge found:

Given the fate of DAPA, the legal advice provided by the Attorney General, and the threat of imminent litigation, it was reasonable for DHS to have concluded—right or wrong—that DACA was unlawful and should be wound down in an orderly manner. Therefore, its decision to rescind DACA cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Titus found that “reasonable legal minds may differ regarding [DACA’s & DAPA’s] lawfulness.” Indeed, Judge Titus clearly thought that the Administration had chosen to implement the wrong policy. He merely found that separation of powers prevented him from intervening to substitute his judgment for that of the Administration. Like virtually everyone else except Sessions, he viewed the situation of the DACA recipients as highly compelling and was critical of Congress and the Administration for failing to resolve it in favor of the DACA recipients.

Even when they supposedly “win,” Sessions and his DOJ minions seem tone-deaf to the “real messages” being sent by the Federal Judges who needlessly have been forced to rule on these cases that should never have happened had Congress taken appropriate actions to protect the Dreamers and the Administration exercised its power and judgment in a more humane manner.

PWS

03-06-18

TAL SAYS THE DREAM SEEMS TO HAVE PASSED – “Dreamers” Are Waking Up To The Reality That They Are Back In “Limboland” With No End In Sight!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/daca-deadline-march-5-passing-immigration-courts/index.html

DACA’s March 5 ‘deadline’ marks only inaction

By Tal Kopan, CNN

It’s been six months since President Donald Trump moved to end a program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation, and Washington seems to be no closer to a resolution on the day everything was supposed to be solved by.

March 5 was originally conceived to be a deadline of sorts for action. When Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September, he created a six-month delay to give Congress time to come up with a legislative version of the policy, which protected young undocumented immigrants who had come to the US as children.

The Department of Homeland Security was going to renew two-year DACA permits that expired before March 5, and Monday was to be the day after which those permits began expiring for good.

But multiple federal judges ruled that the justification the Trump administration was using to terminate the program was shaky at best — and ordered DHS to resume renewing all existing DACA permits. And the Supreme Court declined the administration’s unusual request to leapfrog the appellate courts and consider immediately whether to overrule those decisions.

That court intervention effectively rendered the March 5 deadline meaningless — and, paired with a dramatic failure on the Senate floor to pass a legislative fix, the wind has been mostly taken out of the sails of any potential compromise.

Activists are still marking Monday with demonstrations and advocacy campaigns. Hundreds of DACA supporters were expected to descend on Washington to push for action.

But the calls for a fix stand in contrast with the lack of momentum for any progress in Washington, with little likelihood of that changing in the near future. Congress has a few options lingering on the back burner, but none are showing signs of imminent movement.

March 23 is the next government funding deadline, and some lawmakers have suggested they may try to use the must-pass package of funding bills as a point of leverage.

But sources close to the process say it’s more likely that efforts will be made to keep a bad deal out of the omnibus spending measure than to come up with a compromise to attach to it, as no solution has a clear path to passing either chamber and the House Republican leadership has opposed attaching any immigration matter to a spending deal.

“I have a feeling that anything that goes with the omnibus is going to be a punt, so I’m not excited about that. That’s not my goal,” Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who has been one of the loudest voices pushing for a DACA fix on the GOP side, told reporters last week.

In the Senate, Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, have introduced a bill that would give three-year extension to the DACA program along with three years of border security funding, though that legislation has yet to pick up any momentum and many lawmakers remain hesitant to give up on a more permanent fix. The Senate is also still feeling the residual effect of the failure of a bipartisan group to get 60 votes for a negotiated compromise bill, which suffered from a relentless opposition campaign from the administration. Trump’s preferred bill failed to get even 40 votes, far fewer than the bipartisan group’s.

On the House side of the Capitol, a more conservative bill than even Trump’s proposal has been taking up the focus. The legislation from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and others contains a number of hardline positions and no pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, and it fails to have enough Republican votes even to pass the House. It is considered dead on arrival in the Senate.

But conservatives in the House, buoyed by the President’s vocal support for the bill, have gotten leadership’s commitment to whip the measure, and leadership has been complying for now. According to lawmakers and sources familiar, House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, talked about the bill in a GOP conference meeting during the House’s short workweek last week, and continued to discuss ways to get enough votes.

Lawmakers estimate that at this point, the measure had somewhere between 150 and 170 votes in its favor, far fewer than the 218 it would need. But the bill’s authors are working with leadership to see whether it can be changed enough to lock up more, even as moderates and Democrats remain skeptical it can get there.

“The vote count is looking better every day,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, a conservative Ohio Republican who has been a vocal advocate for the bill. “I think if leadership puts the full weight of leadership behind it, we can get there. … The most recent report I’ve heard is whip count is getting better.”

Moderate Republicans, however, are holding out hope that the party can move on from that bill and seek something that could survive the Senate and become law.

“Bring up the Goodlatte bill that went through Judiciary. If it does not have 218 votes, then let’s go to the next one that makes sense for DACA,” said Rep. Jeff Denham, a California Republican who has supported a compromise on DACA.

In the meantime, most think DACA recipients will continue in limbo, especially with the courts ensuring that renewals can continue for now.

“It’s good news for people in the DACA program, because they can continue renewing their permits. I have mixed feelings on what it means for us here, because we know this institution sometimes only works as deadlines approach, and now there isn’t a deadline,” Curbelo said.

(Published Sunday)

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/politics/daca-advocacy-push-aclu-trump-immigration/index.html

Advocates target Trump in DACA push ahead of March 5

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

Immigration advocates are unveiling a fresh advocacy campaign on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program aimed directly at President Donald Trump — even as a March 5 deadline has been rendered toothless and Congress is retreating from action.

The American Civil Liberties Union is launching a six-figure campaign Sunday to keep the issue up front, using digital and TV advertising as well as local protests and targeted messaging.

The campaign is designed to get the President’s attention, using a mix of digital geo-targeting and physical presence.

The ACLU’s national political director, Faiz Shakir, described the theory behind the effort as getting the issue in front of Trump and sending the message that he uniquely can reach a solution if he commits to it.

“I think the one important thing that I feel like we all appreciated and learned about Donald Trump is that he is a person who reacts to headlines. He’s a person who reacts to PR, publicity and attention, and if you’re not in his face on headlines and press, then essentially you’re kind of outside of his scope,” Shakir said in an interview. “Whatever we can do to try to make it a front-and-center, in-front-of-his-face issue, that’s what we’re going to try to do.”

As of Sunday, the ACLU campaign will be on TV screens, in DC cabs, local political newspapers and other outlets, and streaming apps.

The civil liberties group also plans to buy ads on “Fox and Friends,” a show the President regularly watches, and Twitter ads designed to help supporters tweet directly at Trump and get into his Twitter feed, another presidential favorite.

The 30-second ad intersperses clips of Trump saying how much he supports DACA and its recipients with direct calls to action, saying in text directed at the President: “You killed DACA. … Fix what you broke before it’s too late.”

The group will also debut a banner with Trump’s face and a countdown clock to March 5 in front of the White House on Sunday, as well as work to have demonstrators in California when Trump travels to San Diego, perhaps later this month, to see his border wall prototypes.

The campaign demonstrates the long odds of achieving action on DACA in Washington, as well as the loss of meaning for the March 5 deadline. When Trump opted to terminate the program, which protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, he planned for the permits to begin expiring after March 5, giving Congress six months to act to make the program permanent.

But court decisions have required the administration to resume renewing the two-year DACA permits indefinitely, and after a failed attempt in the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation over objections from Trump, Congress has retreated from the issue with the deadline no longer offering urgency.

Shakir said the ACLU plans to continue the push in the coming weeks and into November’s elections, urging action however it can send the message.

“We’re trying to find a way to be positive and optimistic to keep the enthusiasm going,” Shakir said. “The court injunctions are helpful in that … we have some hopes that we’ll be able to have months of reprieve, but we don’t know how many months.”

****************************************

I think it’s going to take “regime change.” And, “regime change” takes time and great effort. And, the outcome is always far from certain.

PWS

03-05-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Wake up America! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Here’s an article by Tal Kopan @ CNN on the latest memos:

Related posts:

ICE rolls back pregnant detainee release policy

White House reviewing plan to restrict immigrants’ use of government programs

US to require immigrants to turn over social media handles

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: