"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration grossly miscalculated budget projections before it cited funding problems to replace many immigration court interpreters in San Francisco and elsewhere with recorded videos, according to a new watchdog report.
The Justice Department began requiring immigration judges to use videos last year to explain the court system at immigrants’ initial appearances instead of in-person interpreters, a move first reported by The Chronicle. The department said the move was necessary to save money.
But an analysis by the department’s inspector general released Tuesday found that Justice Department officials were working off faulty numbers, part of an inaccurate portrayal of the agency’s larger budget situation.
The department “erroneously estimated its yearly interpreter costs by extrapolating a single, unusually high monthly interpreter expense, which was not supported by invoices or other contemporaneous evidence,” the watchdog wrote. “This erroneous estimate adversely affected (the agency’s) leadership’s communication of accurate budget needs to department and congressional decision makers.”
Career members at the Board of Immigration Appeals appointed prior to the Trump administration have been “reassigned” to new roles after they rejected recent buyout offers by the Justice Department.
The step appears to be the latest administrative move that critics say dilutes the independence of an important appeals body by filling it with new hires more willing to carry out the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies.
The change was announced in an internal email viewed by CQ Roll Call.
“This is to inform you that effective June 8, 2020, you will be reassigned from your current position as Board Member (Senior Level) to the Appellate Immigration Judge position,” said an email that went out last week to nine career members.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, is a 23-member body under the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency overseeing the immigration court system. Three-member BIA panels review immigration court decisions and issue precedent-setting rulings that shape national immigration law.
The difference between “board member” and “appellate immigration judge” roles goes beyond title, extending to pay ranges and leave policy. Appellate immigration judges also hear cases at both the trial and appellate levels, creating potential conflicts of interests, critics say. Sources familiar with the agency’s personnel matters, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, confirmed that all nine career members selected prior to the Trump administration received the email.
CQ Roll Call first reached out to EOIR for confirmation of the reassignments. Agency spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said via email that “board member roles and responsibilities are established by regulation and have not changed.”
Asked for additional comment this week once CQ Roll Call viewed the email, Mattingly said: “Adjudicator authorities are established by law and have not changed.”
The reassignment comes after DOJ offered, in an April 17 memo, “voluntary separation incentive payments” to the nine career board members, “individuals whose positions will help us strategically restructure EOIR in order to accommodate skills, technology, and labor markets.”
That memo, authored by EOIR Director James McHenry, noted the window for requesting these incentives closed on May 15. None of the nine career members accepted the offer, according to the sources at EOIR.
Under the Trump administration, the BIA has expanded from 17 members to 23. In addition, a flurry of career members have departed the agency, prompting EOIR to launch successive hiring sprees to fill new openings and vacant positions.
The nine most recent hires to the board include several immigration judges who denied over 90 percent of the asylum requests before them. Some also have a history of formal complaints of bias. The new hires have come on not as “board members” but as “appellate immigration judges.”
Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the immigration judges’ union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the “appellate immigration judge position” appeared to be a conflation of the BIA and the immigration judge roles. Adding more appellate immigration judges — who might review trial- and appellate-level cases at the same time — dilutes labor protections and undermines the independence of the immigration court system as a whole, she said.
“Over and over again, they’re just trying to conflate everything into one: ‘They’re all the same and no one should get protection from the union,'” Tabaddor said in an interview. “It’s so transparent that everything that they’re doing is to dismantle any semblance of a traditional court model.”
EOIR has repeatedly denied that accusation.
“Many board members have viewed themselves as appellate immigration judges for years, and EOIR first proposed such a designation in 2000,” the Justice Department said in a May 27 statement. “Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States.”
Government officials also have said the agency has been trying to streamline a lengthy, inefficient hiring process. Recent changes to EOIR hiring procedures “have made the selection process of board members more formalized and neutral,” the department said in its May statement.
*************
A link to a complete copy of the IG Report is embedded in Tal’s report above.
Eyore’s Continuing Clown Show 🤡 rolls on, grinding up ☠️ and spitting out 🤮ruined human lives and mocking due process every day! When, oh when, will Congress and/or the Article IIIs do their jobs and put this grotesque spectacle of injustice out of its misery and end the unnecessary and clearly unconstitutional human pain and suffering that it inflicts? Is there no human decency and integrity left anywhere in our failing institutions beyond the regime’s direct control?
After dealing with the Trump Kakistocracy, Eyore probably never figured he’d be followed and exposed by tenacious folks like Tal & Tanvi who actually know more about what’s really happening at America’sStar Chambers than he does! Why don’t our legislators and judges have the same awareness, courage, and integrity as journalists like Tal and Tanvi? Why have those whose primary job it is to protect the Constitution and the general welfare by holding an overtly corrupt and maliciously incompetent Executive accountable gone “belly up?”
As usual, Judge Tabaddor is “right on.” Any resemblance between EOIR and a “court system” is purely coincidental. But, this mess is all too real for its victims — asylum seekers and other migrants asking for justice. The real question: How do the legislators and life-tenured Article III Judges who ignore and enable these deadly abuses get away with it? How do they sleep at night knowing that Eyore will trample more rights and destroy more lives ofvulnerable fellow humans tomorrow, on “their watch!”
Due Process Forever! Institutional Complicity Never!
Immigration courts in ‘chaos,’ with coronavirus effects to last years
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Raquel and her sons fled gang threats in El Salvador, survived the weeks-long journey to the U.S., and then endured the Trump administration’s 2018 separations at the southern border.
This month, she was finally going to get her chance to convince an immigration judge in San Francisco that she should be granted permanent asylum in the U.S., ending the agony of having to prepare for her court date by reliving the danger in her native country and her weeks of detention at the border.
Thanks to the coronavirus, she will have to endure the wait for three more years.
“It’s really traumatizing, because I have to keep telling them the same thing,” Raquel said. “I thought I had gotten over everything that had happened to me … but every time I remember, I can’t help crying.”
Raquel’s case is one of hundreds of thousands in the immigration courts that are being delayed by the pandemic. The courts, run by the Justice Department, have been closed for health reasons in the same way that much of U.S. public life has been on hold. But many of those who work in the system say the Trump administration has handled the shutdown in an especially haphazard manner, increasing the stress on judges and attorneys in addition to immigrants and making it harder for the courts to bounce back.
“There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The Justice Department began postponing hearings for immigrants who are not in detention on March 18, and the delays have been extended every few weeks. Hearings are now set to resume June 15. But many courts technically remain open, including the one in San Francisco, with frequently changing statuses announced on social media and a website. It also took weeks for all judges to get laptops that would allow them to work remotely, said Tabaddor, who hears immigration cases in Los Angeles.
The scattershot communications make it difficult to prepare for if and when the hearings are held, immigrants say. And it’s worse for those who have no lawyer who can help navigate the changes. About one-third of immigrants with pending cases have no representation, according to Justice Department statistics, and missing a hearing is grounds for deportation.
The Justice Department says it is being proactive in balancing safety with immigrants’ rights. A spokeswoman said the agency is “deeply concerned” for the health of its staff and the public.
In a recent legal filing, the director of the immigration courts, James McHenry, said a “one size fits all” approach to court closures and procedures wouldn’t work, given varying situations at different locations.
With postponements happening on short notice, most immigrants fighting deportation feel they must prepare for court even if pandemic-caused delays seem likely. But doing so can force them to revisit the terrifying situations they say they came to the U.S. to escape.
None who spoke with The Chronicle said they wanted to risk their health by keeping the courts open. But they and their attorneys said they wished the administration was doing more to take immigrants’ and staffers’ needs into account.
Because the immigration courts already have a backlog of more than 1 million cases, it can take years for an asylum applicant such as Raquel to go before a judge. In the meantime, they build lives here, knowing that can be yanked away if they’re ordered deported.
Raquel and others whose hearings have been postponed won’t go first when the courts reopen — they go to the back of the line. The alternative for the immigration courts would be a logistical nightmare of rescheduling everyone else’s hearings, which are now booked years in advance.
The Trump administration ended the practice of prioritizing cases of criminal immigrants or recent arrivals, and has curtailed judges’ ability to simply close the case of a low-risk migrant less deserving of deportation, which would clear court schedules for more serious cases.
The Justice Department declined to say how many hearings have been postponed because of the pandemic. But a nonprofit statistics clearinghouse estimated that the government shutdown of 2018-19 resulted in the cancellation of 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week.
Raquel’s case is emblematic of the thousands that are now in limbo. The Chronicle has agreed not to use her real name out of her concern for her safety, in accordance with its anonymous sourcing policy.
Raquel says she came to the U.S. in 2018 because a gang in the area of El Salvador where she lived threatened her family after her two sons refused to join.
She was among the immigrant families that were forcibly separated at the border. She spent a month and a half apart from her teenage son as she was shuffled between detention centers and jails. She says she endured numerous indignities, including having to shower in front of guards and being shackled by her wrists and ankles.
“It was the most bitter experience I’ve ever had,” she said in Spanish.
After finally being reunited with her son and released, Raquel rejoined her husband and other son who had come here previously, settling in San Francisco. She was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which again made her feel like “a prisoner.”
“I had never felt so hurt like I did in this country, which hurt me so much just for crossing a border illegally,” Raquel said. “That was the sin and the crime that we committed, and we paid a high price.”
Raquel spoke with The Chronicle before receiving word that her May hearing was canceled. She and her attorney had felt forced to prepare despite a high likelihood of postponement, just in case the Justice Department forged ahead.
San Francisco attorneys who are working with immigrants during the pandemic say it is an acute challenge. Stay-at-home orders complicate preparing for cases that could have life-and-death consequences for those who fled violence back home.
Difficulties include trying to submit 1,000-page filings from home, needing to discuss traumatic stories of domestic and sexual violence with immigrants who are sharing one-bedroom apartments with 10 other people, and navigating courts’ changing status on Twitter.
“It’s taking an already not-user-friendly system and spinning it into chaos to the extent that even savvy practitioners don’t know how to get information, let alone the applicant,” said Erin Quinn, an attorney in San Francisco with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
She added, “The stakes are high, and at the same time, a comment I got yesterday from a practitioner was, ‘I’m tired of trying to figure out what to do with my practice based on tweets.’”
Judges and court staffers are also frustrated. On March 22, an unprecedented partnership was formed among the unions representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who serve as prosecutors in the courts, judges and the association for attorneys who represent immigrants. They wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding it close all the courts, not just postpone hearings for immigrants who are not in detention. The agency later expanded the ability of attorneys to appear by telephone and for some judges to work from home.
Even now, however, the Justice Department is requiring some judges and staff to come in to court to handle cases of immigrants who are being detained — those hearings have not been canceled — or to process filings.
“It is very, very upsetting. Employees do not feel like they are, No. 1, being protected and, No. 2, you don’t feel respected and valued,” said Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emerita of the judges’ union.
Marks and Tabaddor say it’s part of a Trump administration pattern of stripping immigration judges of their independence at the expense of fair proceedings— an example of “haste makes waste,” Marks said. The Justice Department has set performance metrics to push judges to complete more cases, and Trump’s attorneys general have issued rulings that made it more difficult for judges to prioritize their caseloads.
The Justice Department, for its part, says it is making the courts more efficient. In November, McHenry testified before Congress that his agency had “made considerable progress in restoring (the courts’) reputation as a fully functioning, efficient and impartial administrative court system fully capable of rendering timely decisions consistent with due process.”
Quinn, the San Francisco attorney, said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.
“Everything this administration has done to speed up or deal with the backlog are actually actions that limit the meting out of justice in the courts, which even before this crisis have been gumming up the system further,” Quinn said. “We will see the impact of that now as we try to come out of this crisis.”
Meanwhile, for immigrants like Raquel, the wait will continue. Even with the hardship, she says coming to the U.S. was worth the risks.
“It’s about protecting my children,” she said. “I’ve always told my sons, if God let us get here, they have to take advantage of it. … In my country, someone walks down the block and they get assaulted or kidnapped and nobody ever finds them. But not here. Here you feel safe.”
San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.
It’s great to have you back, Tal! We’ve missed you!
It’s well worth going to the link to read Tal’s full article! Also, you’ll see some great pictures from the “home chambers” of my good friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, a Past President of the NAIJ.
What also would be great is if the dire situation in the U.S. Immigration Courts had actually improved over the past few months. But, predictably, the “downward spiral” has only accelerated.
Tal’s article brings to life the “human trauma” inflicted not only on those poor souls whose constitutional due process rights have been “sold down the river” by this “maliciously incompetent” regime, but also the unnecessary trauma inflicted on everyone touched by this disgraceful system: private and pro bono counsel, judges, interpreters, clerical staff, government counsel, and their families all get to partake of the unnecessary pain and suffering.
While it undoubtedly would take years to restore due process, fundamental fairness, and some measure of efficiency to this dysfunctional mess, the starting points aren’t “rocket science” – they are deceptively simple. One was eloquently stated by Erin Quinn, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco who “said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.” That’s actually how it used to be done in places like Arlington.
As Judge Marks points out, a host of “haste makes waste” gimmicks and enforcement schemes by this Administration (and to a lesser extent by the Obama Administration) have resulted in massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and total chaos as politicos in at the DOJ and bureaucrats in EOIR HQ “redesign and reshuffle” dockets to achieve political objectives and “send messages” without any meaningful input from the Immigration Judges and attorneys (on both sides) who actually do the work and understand the dynamics of a particular docket.
In particular, under a fair and unbiased application of legal standards there are thousands of well-documented meritorious asylum and cancellation of removal cases that could be handled in “short hearings.”Other individuals could be removed from the docket to pursue U and T nonimmigrant visas or “stateside processing” permanent immigration with USCIS. Still others have documentation establishing that they are productive, law-abiding tax-paying members of their communities, often with U.S.citizen family, who should be removed from the dockets through the type of sensible, mutually beneficial “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) programs that were beginning to show meaningful results before being arbitrarily terminated by this Administration.
This is just the “tip of the iceberg.” There are many more improvements in efficiency, without sacrificing due process, and “best practices” that could be made if this were operated as a fair and impartial court system, rather than an appendage of DHS Enforcement committed to Stephen Miller’s nativist agenda.
The other necessary piece is the one promoted by Judge Tabaddor and the NAIJ and endorsed by nearly all “non-restrictionist” experts in the field: establishing an independent Immigration Court outside of the Executive Branch. That’s not likely to happen without “regime change.”
Moreover, it’s clear from his recent actions that Billy Barr, who is currently running the Immigration Courts into the ground, actually aspires to “kneecap” the Article III Judiciary in behalf of his lord and master, Trump. Barr would be delighted if all Federal,Courts, including the Article IIIs, were functionaries of the all powerful “Unitary Executive.” Given the Supremes’ failure to stand up for immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ legal rights as they are systematically dismantled by the regime, Barr is already a ways down that road!
Tal’s article also highlights another glaring deficiency: the lack of a diverse, merit-based Immigration Judiciary committed solely to “due process with efficiency” and fair and impartial adjudications under the law, particularly the asylum laws. Experts like Erin Quinn, folks with a deep scholarly understanding of immigration and asylum laws and experience representing the individuals whose lives are caught up in this system, should be on the Immigration Bench. They are the ones with the knowledge and experience in making “hard but fair” choices and how to achieve “practical efficiency” without sacrificing due process.
Rather than actively recruiting those outstanding candidates from the private, academic, and NGO sectors with asylum experience and knowledge, so that they could interact and share their expertise and practical experiences with other judicial colleagues, the current system draws almost exclusively from the ranks of “insiders” and government prosecutors. They apparently are hired with the expectation that they will churn out orders of removals in support of DHS Enforcement without “rocking the boat.” To some extent this was also true under the Obama Administration, which also hired lopsidedly from among government attorneys.
Indeed, prior immigration experience is not even a job requirement right now. The hiring tends to favor those with high volume litigation skills, primarily gained through prosecution. That doesn’t necessarily translate into fair and scholarly judging, although it might and has in some instances.
Of course, a few do defy expectations and stand up for the legal and due process rights of respondents. But, that’s not the expectation of the politicos and bureaucrats who do the hiring. And the two-year probation period for newly hired Immigration Judges gives Administration politicos and their EOIR subordinates “leverage” on the new judges that they might not have on those who are more established in the system, particularly those who are “retirement eligible.”
Moreover, the BIA has now been “stocked” with judges with reputations for favoring enforcement and ruling against asylum seekers in an unusually high percentage of cases.The design appears to be to insure that even those who “beat the odds” and are granted asylum by an Immigration Judge get “zapped” when the DHS appeals. Even if the BIA dared not to enforce the “restrictionist party line,” the Attorney General can and does intervene in individual cases to change the result to favor DHS and then to make it a “precedent” for future cases.Could there be a clearer violation of due process and judicial ethics? I doubt it. But, the Courts of Appeals largely pretend not to see or understand the reality of what’s happening in the Immigration Courts.
Beyond that, the Immigration Judge job, intentionally in my view, has been made so unattractive for those who believe in due process for individuals and a fair application of asylum laws, that few would want to serve in the current environment. Indeed, a number of fine Immigration Judges have resigned or retired as matters of conscience because they felt unable to square “system expectations” with their oaths of office.
To state the obvious, the current version of Congress has become a feckless bystander to this ongoing human rights, constitutional, ethical, and fiscal disaster. But, the real question is whatever happened to the existing independent Article III Judiciary? They continue to remain largely above the fray and look the other way as the Constitution they are sworn to uphold is further ground into the turf every day and the screams of the abused and dehumanized (“Dred-Scottified”) emanating from this charade of a “court system” get louder and louder.Will they ever get loud enough to reach the refined ears of those ensconced in the “ivory tower” of the Article III Judiciary?
Someday! But, the impetus for the necessary changes to make Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel, intellectually dishonest, and unfulfilled promise is going to have to come from outside the current broken and intentionally unfair system and those complicit in its continuing and worsening abuses of the law and humanity!
Exclusive: Trump’s top border official broke FBI rules to fund happy hours
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s top border official broke federal ethics rules in a previous job by seeking sponsors to buy alcohol and fancy food for FBI happy hours, according to a watchdog report exclusively obtained by The Chronicle.
Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection agency, continued asking the outside entities to pay for the social events even after being warned it was against federal rules, the Justice Department’s inspector general found.
The previously unreported finding raises questions about the Trump administration’s vetting process for top officials. Although Morgan’s role is typically subject to Senate confirmation, Trump has not nominated him for the job. That has circumvented the traditional review by the Senate — leaving it unclear whether the ethical lapse was ever known to the administration.
Customs and Border Protection and Morgan declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The violations occurred when Morgan was working at the FBI in 2015 as deputy assistant director of the training division, according to the inspector general’s report. Midway through the investigation in the summer of 2016, Morgan retired from the FBI and was named under then-President Barack Obama to head the Border Patrol. He declined to cooperate with the probe after that, the report said.
Let’s see. Morgan is the racist charlatan who claimed that he could identify a future gang member just by “looking in their eyes.”He was also an enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s threatened (but never fully implemented) “reign of terror” directed against families in ethnic communities. And, of course, as acting CBP Honcho, he encourages and presides over parts of the “New American Gulag,” “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico,” and other human rights violations every day.
Plus, Morgan is as dim as he is evil if he considers government ethics advice to be “mere suggestions.” But, of course, when funding of a TGIF is on the line, why not “push the envelope.” He does exhibit the arrogance and disregard for the rules that apply to others that is a hallmark of the Trump Regime’s Kakistocracy.
However, it’s also significant that this information was available when Obama appointed Morgan Border Patrol Chief. Lots of today’s gross abuses by the Trump Regime have their roots in the Obama Administration’s overall poor, often uninformed, and sometimes negligent approach to immigration issues.
Travesties like “family detention,” “insider-only” hiring at the Immigration Courts and the BIA, absolutist positions on indefinite detention, defense of “toddlers representing themselves” in Immigration Court, and use of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at the Immigration Courts in support of inappropriate and unethical “enforcement goals” all helped create unnecessary disorder and inhumanity in the already poorly functioning system.
Obama had a golden chance both to resolve Dreamers and create an Article I Immigration Court at the beginning of his Administration with badly needed, straightforward statutory reforms. Instead, by putting all of his attention on healthcare, to the exclusion of other pressing humanitarian problems, he more or less insured the later “weaponization” of the Immigration Courts, the creation and expansion of the “New American Gulag,” and holding “Dreamers” hostage.
If Obama had taken bold action in 2009, many of the “original Dreamers” would be fully integrated into our society and on their way to citizenship and full participation in our political process by now. Instead, they are being “hung out to dry” by Trump, the GOP, and likely the Supremes. A generation of American youth is being denied the opportunity to contribute and achieve their full potential in the United States.
And, think of how a “real” independent Immigration Court system, with a diverse judiciary with true immigration, human rights, and due process expertise, might have dealt with Trump’s consistent legal overreach on immigration and asylum issues. Indeed, while the Immigration Court backlog might not have been eliminated by an Article I Court, I’ll be it would be considerably less than it is now with an independent court where judges, not enforcement-driven bureaucrats, are in charge of managing their own dockets.
Obviously, we can’t change the past. But, we certainly can avoid repeating its mistakes in the future. Something to consider when looking at Democratic Presidential contenders.
Watch the videos introducing immigrants to U.S. courts
WASHINGTON — A man in a judge’s robe sits in a leather chair in front of an American flag and Department of Justice seal, looking into the camera. As he begins to talk, a woman’s voice translates into Spanish and Spanish subtitles appear at the bottom of the screen.
This is the video that will introduce immigrants to the U.S. courts where they will fight to avoid deportation.
The Chronicle has obtained copies through the Freedom of Information Act of four such videos, made by the Justice Department as part of its policy replacing in-person interpreters at immigrants’ initial court hearings. To date, the videos have been produced in English and Spanish dubbing, for detained immigrants and those who are free from detention.
Confusion, delays as videos replace interpreters at immigrants’ hearings
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has been slow to implement its new policy replacing in-person interpreters with informational videos at immigrants’ initial hearings, but the switch is causing delays and confusion where it has been introduced, including in San Francisco, observers say.
So far, the policy has been rolled out to courts in just four cities: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami and New York.
It’s not clear when the policy will expand. A spokesman for the Justice Department division that oversees the courts said the agency “is taking into consideration all feedback before additional translation videos are created and the program is rolled out to further immigration courts.”
Judges and attorneys observing the courts say the change has mostly served to delay proceedings, by adding lengthy steps and information that is not necessary for all migrants to hear.
After the videos are shown, each immigrant is called up for his or her individual hearing and may have questions for the judge. Although judges are now barred from scheduling in-person interpreters for the hearings, at times interpreters can be found on short notice in the courthouses. When none is available, judges must try a telephone service to reach an interpreter.
At issue are what are called master calendar hearings — immigrants’ first appearance in courts that determine whether they can remain in the U.S. The typically rapid-fire sessions serve to inform migrants of their rights and the process they will go through. Judges also schedule their next hearings.
Many immigrants in the system are Spanish speakers, but it’s also common for Chinese, Creole, and several indigenous languages from Central America and around the world to be spoken in courtrooms.
Judges in courts that have made the change are required to play either a Spanish-dubbed or English-language video for immigrants who do not have attorneys representing them. The 20-minute video runs through a lengthy list of technical legal advisories. Videos in other languages are not yet available, but the Justice Department has plans to introduce them.
Most of the dozens of immigrants going through their initial hearings Tuesday in San Francisco were shown the video. Many of them had attorneys present who translated, and others were able to use a Spanish-speaking interpreter who was on hand. Languages spoken in court included Spanish, Punjabi, Hindi, Mandarin and Fijian.
One hearing in the courtroom of Judge Arwen Swink involved a Mongolian woman who needed translation. After about five minutes, Swink was able to secure an interpreter in her language through the telephone service Lionbridge.
Swink asked the interpreter to introduce himself to the woman, who did not have an attorney, to ensure that she understood him. The interpreter said he had trouble hearing, but court staffers brought the microphone closer to the woman and the session was able to proceed.
With an interpreter in the room, such a hearing can take five minutes or less. The woman’s case took 15 minutes.
The Chronicle has obtained transcripts of the separate videos that are played for immigrants who are in detention and not in detention, as well as an FAQ handout they receive.
Roughly a fifth of the videos are devoted to a discussion of “voluntary departure,” under which immigrants can go back to their home country without being penalized if they try to come back someday. The videos also warn immigrants of the criminal consequences of trying to re-enter the country illegally after being deported.
Legal experts and veteran immigration judges say neither topic was commonly brought up in initial hearings before the videos were introduced because they are most relevant at the end of cases, if migrants do not prevail in their bid to remain in the U.S. Several said they feared the emphasis on voluntary departures and criminal penalties could prompt immigrants with valid claims to stay in the U.S. to waive their right without fully understanding what they’re doing.
The Justice Department did not consult with the union that represents immigration judges before making the change, and has proceeded despite ongoing bargaining with the group. The result is “lots of confusion, constantly changing parameters of the program by the agency and frustration among many judges,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and an immigration judge in Los Angeles.
Tabaddor added that courts in New York and Miami have had trouble securing help by phone, and that cases have been delayed in the Los Angeles court because of shortages of interpreters.
Amiena Khan, the union’s executive vice president and a judge in New York, said the videos make for a “really long day” for unrepresented immigrants who have to wait through proceedings for all migrants who have attorneys before watching a 20-minute video. She finds herself repeating or adding key advisories when immigrants are called before her.
“There was no problem that needed to be solved by the introduction of the video,” Khan said. “What I think really bothers me is that it’s mandatory. I think if it was discretionary as a tool for the judge to use, it could be helpful. (But) it takes away our judicial independence as to what method to employ to best get through the day’s docket.”
Khan and former immigration Judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcripts, also noted that the videos do not include information that would be important for immigrants, including that they have only one year to formally apply for asylum in the U.S.
“The information provided is misleading in a way that can lead to a noncitizen’s removal,” said Chase, who now volunteers for organizations that provide legal assistance to immigrants.
Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the transcripts show that the videos use “scare tactics” instead of informing immigrants of their rights. The videos warn immigrants against filing frivolous asylum claims, but don’t explain what asylum is, she noted.
“The videos provide an overwhelming amount of information that no one can easily digest in one setting,” Lynch said. “What’s more disturbing is that the content itself only tells one side of the story.”
*************************************
Click on the link for Tal’s full story with links to actual transcripts of this “parody of justice.”
This is DOJ/EOIR’s “malicious incompetence” in action. Accurate interpretation is essential to Due Process and fundamental fairness as well as the hallmark of a competently and professionally run court system. Somewhere along the line, the money for interpreters was frittered away by what passes for “management” at DOJ/EOIR. And, let’s not even think about the waste of money on absurd “Immigration Judge Dashboards” while the two decades old overwhelming need for a functional nationwide e-filing system goes unmet.
Right now, Congress is paralyzed. When are the Article III Courts going to wake up, get some backbone, and enforce the U.S. Constitution by putting an end to this so-called “court system” run by prosecutors that provides not even a semblance of fair and impartial (and at least minimally competent) adjudication? No more “Clown Court!”🤡
AG William Barr promotes immigration judges with high asylum denial rates
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has promoted six judges to the immigration appeals court that sets binding policy for deportation cases — all whom have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims.
The six come from courts that have higher asylum-denial rates than the national average, including two from a court that has drawn complaints of unfair proceedings from immigration attorneys and advocates. A third has a long history of denying asylum to domestic violence victims, something the Justice Department has also sought to do.
The new appeals judges, who will now make up more than a quarter of the appellate board, were appointed as the administration works to speed up the immigration courts and narrow migrants’ use of asylum cases to come to the U.S. The six new appointees were sworn in Friday.
The hires are in a new role, in which judges will be allowed to continue serving at any immigration court in the country rather than having to move to suburban Falls Church, Va., where the appeals board’s headquarters are. The new appeals judges will also be allowed to serve as fill-in lower court immigration judges. Critics had suspected the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, created the new positions to pack the board with judges from courts with high rates of denying immigrants’ claims, who may otherwise not have wanted to move to D.C.
The board serves as the appellate body for the immigration court system, an entity separate from the federal courts.
As in the federal system, the immigration board has the power to overrule lower court decisions with three-judge panels. By a majority vote of all its 21 members, it can make those rulings binding on the nation’s nearly 400 immigration judges. Recently, Barr published a new regulation giving himself the power to make any appellate decision binding as well.
By law, the Justice Department is barred from considering political leanings when hiring judges. Agency officials say judges are selected based only on their qualifications for the job, and that their history of rulings is not taken into account.
According to data tracked by Syracuse University from 2013 through 2018, all the judges promoted Friday have records of denying asylum at much higher rates than immigration judges nationally. The Justice Department has in the past questioned Syracuse’s methodology, but does not provide statistics of its own.
Two of the new appeals judges were promoted by Barr from the Atlanta immigration court, which has one of the highest rates of asylum claim denials in the country. The court rejected 95.3% of claims from 2013 to 2018, compared with a national average of 57.6%, Syracuse found.
One of the two new appeals judges from Atlanta, William Cassidy, had a rejection rate of 95.8%, 22nd highest in the country.
Cassidy was also the subject of 11 complaints from immigration attorneys from 2010-2013, according to material obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. That number of complaints was more than roughly 95% of all other immigration judges in that period, according to information from the lawsuit. Five of the 11 resulted in Cassidy being counseled by a superior on proper judicial behavior.
Also promoted by Barr from the Atlanta court was Earle Wilson, who denied 98.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018, according to Syracuse. That was more than all but five immigration judges in the U.S.
Wilson and Cassidy were also named in two complaints filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, in 2017 and 2018 that argued the Atlanta court was treating immigrants unfairly. The complaints said Wilson and Cassidy behaved in an intimidating fashion toward immigrants and their advocates.
It is not clear whether the Justice Department has responded to those complaints. The department said Friday it does not discuss personnel matters.
The other new appellate judges are:
• Keith Hunsucker, who has spent most of his time on the bench at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas. While there, he denied 81.6% of asylum cases, consistent with his court’s 81.1% average. Hunsucker is now in Cleveland.
• Deborah Goodwin, appointed from the Miami immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017, and through last year had a denial rate of 89.4%, above her court’s average of 79.6% in the 2013 to 2018 time frame measured by Syracuse.
• Stephanie Gorman, promoted from the Houston immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017 and has an 86.9% asylum denial rate, slightly below her court’s 89.3% average.
• Stuart Couch, who was appointed from Charlotte, N.C., denied 92.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018. That was above his court’s average of 88.2%.
Couch also authored a 2017 ruling denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman who was physically and emotionally abused and raped by her ex-husband, a decision that the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed. It was that appellate decision that Sessions overturned to align the law more closely with Couch’s interpretation, saying domestic violence was largely not grounds for asylum. A federal judge has blocked that ruling for now.
Couch’s original decision was one of 10 domestic violence-related cases in 2017 in which the Board of Immigration Appeals found his rulings were “clearly erroneous.” In all 10, Couch rejected the claims of Central American women who had been beaten, raped and otherwise abused by their husbands or partners. The cases were made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by immigration attorney Bryan Johnson.
The Justice Department stood behind all the judges.
“DOJ doesn’t track asylum approval and denial rates for individual immigration judges, and (Syracuse) uses its own methodologies in interpreting the data it receives, resulting in conclusions that we cannot verify,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “Collectively these judges combined, have nearly 120 years of immigration law combined, through multiple administrations. Advocates that attack their integrity and professionalism only undermine the entire system.”
Immigration attorneys fear the hires are part of an effort by the Trump administration to skew the courts against immigrants, who face deportation if their claims are denied.
“The board’s primary function is to ensure rule of law and impartiality, yet the department cherry-picked judges from the harshest jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “When we’re talking about asylum cases, these decisions are life or death for those seeking protection.”
Lynch’s group, along with the American Bar Association and national union for immigration judges, have called for the immigration courts to be removed from the Justice Department and made independent. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has pledged to pursue legislation that would do so through the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration she chairs in the House.
How many refugees will die or be subjected to additional torture and persecution because of thoroughly biased judges and a corrupt “judicial” system controlled by political hacks like Barr. Will Congress and the Article IIIs ever step in and restore some semblance of Due Process? Unless and until they do, the “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands.
Meanwhile, the complicit/complacent Article IIIs who have let this situation get out of control can look forward to being flooded with petitions for review, because the New Due Process Army will continue to fight this unconstitutional, fundamentally unfair, and evil perversion of American justice!
The idea that six Judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the “best qualified” for these appellate jobs is simply absurd. Indeed, probably all of us in the Roundtable of Former Judges know of much better judicial candidates who were passed over so that Barr could install his “Death Squad.”
As Tal points out, unless piling up bar complaints, being cited by the public for rudeness, being reversed by their BIA, and denying an usually high number of asylum claims are among the “quality ranking factors” for these jobs, it’s hard to see how several of these judges would be considered even minimally qualified for promotion, let alone “best qualified.” It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted, including a look at the qualifications of candidates who were passed over.
Human lives are being trivialized by this White Nationalist regime and its enablers.
Ninth Circuit ruling could wipe out hundreds of family separations convictions
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in California substantially narrowed the government’s ability to charge people for crossing the border illegally — a case that could invalidate hundreds of prosecutions that were at the core of the Trump administration’s separations of migrant families last year.
The ruling comes as the federal law in the case, which makes it a crime to cross the border without authorization, is under scrutiny in the Democratic presidential campaign, with several candidates arguing it should be done away with altogether.
Wednesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena could bolster the Democrats’ argument that the Trump administration is misusing the law to criminalize well-intentioned immigrants seeking asylum. It also adds further questions to the administration’s widely criticized prosecutions that resulted in thousands of family separations last year.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The 2-1 decision overturning a lower court ruling concerned the provision of U.S. law that makes improper entry to the country a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The law has three parts: entering the U.S. at an improper time or place, eluding immigration officers or entering the U.S. using false pretenses.
In an opinion written by Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush-appointee, the court decided that the second part — eluding officers — could only apply to immigrants who are at a valid border crossing but who try to enter by evading detection, not immigrants picked up on the U.S. side having crossed somewhere else. That was the case with Oracio Corrales-Vazquez, a Mexican national whom officers found hiding in bushes miles from the border, whose conviction the court overturned.
Because part one of the statute already covers immigrants who surreptitiously enter where there is no legal crossing, the court held, the second part must exist to cover some separate activity. Otherwise, the court said, it would be redundant.
Circuit has already held that part one of the illegal-entry crime — entering at an improper time or place — does not apply to people who cross the border where officials can see them, in person or over cameras, and then seek out an officer and claim asylum. Those migrants are clearly not trying to avoid detection, court rulings have held.
It has become standard practice for federal authorities in Southern California to charge border crossers only using part two to avoid the defense to part one, said Kara Hartzler, an attorney with the nonprofit San Diego Federal Defenders who brought the case. Now, federal attorneys will not have part two as a back door to charge asylum seekers with illegal entry.
The court ruling means thousands of similar convictions could be thrown out, including hundreds that were the basis for family separations the Trump administration carried out last summer in the name of prosecuting a crime.
“All of the criminal cases that led to being separated from their families, … at least in San Diego, are at least convictions where the person was actually innocent because of this ruling,” Hartzler said.
David Leopold, a former president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, recalled then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen telling Congress the family separations were justified because the adults taken into custody had been charged with illegal-entry crimes.
“Well, here they weren’t even prosecuting those cases correctly,” Leopold said. “It puts a question mark next to every one of those convictions, which led to separation of children and in some cases the permanent separation of child from parent.”
The Trump administration separated thousands of families in the two months the program was in effect, before the president stopped it and a federal judge in San Diego ruled the practice was unconstitutional. In hundreds of those cases, parents were deported without their children, many of whom will not be reunited as the youths pursue a right to stay in the U.S.
The Justice Department does not make prosecution data public that would identify how many separated families could be affected by Wednesday’s ruling, but there could be hundreds of such cases. Nearly 4,000 immigration-related offenses were brought in the Southern District of California in 2018, according to court data, of which the most common charge is illegal entry.
The ruling also comes as some Democrats are attacking the notion that crossing the border should be a criminal rather than civil offense. Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro has made repealing the law a central focus of his presidential campaign, pointing to the Trump administration’s use of the law as a justification for separating the families last year. Twelve Democratic candidates have embraced the idea, according to a Politico tracker.
Castro and other critics of the law say it criminalizes asylum seeking. Other parts of the law make clear that an immigrant can file an asylum claim regardless of whether they entered the country legally.
Bill Hing, professor of law and migration studies at University of San Francisco, supports Castro’s arguments to remove the criminal part of the law, saying deportation is “already a pretty severe penalty” for anyone found not to have a valid asylum claim.
“Especially now, the vast majority of people gathered at the border are coming to seek protection — why criminalize that activity?” Hing said. “The statute should require something much more criminal in intent, and when it’s just simply to cross the border to seek protection, I think there’s a good argument that we should decriminalize that activity.”
The ruling applies only to the nine states covered by the Ninth Circuit, including California and Arizona along the Mexican border. But Hing says lawyers could seek similar rulings in other border states.
“Conceptually it actually makes sense,” Hing said. “It doesn’t make sense to have two parts of a law where the same act could qualify for the violation of both.”
*******************************************
Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Jay Bybee has been a controversial figure. His confirmation was strongly opposed by many Human Rights and Civil Rights groups because of his role in justifying torture while serving in the Bush DOJ.
Unfortunately, this much needed decision comes too late for many families who have been irreparably damaged by “Gonzo Apolcalypto’s” vile illegal and immoral abuse of Government prosecutorial authority. It’s too bad that there does not appear to be any way of holding “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions personally liable for his abuse of office, unconscionable distortion of our justice system, and the lifetime damage he inflicted on so many innocent children and families.
Videos start replacing interpreters at immigration court hearings
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration began the process of eliminating in-person interpreters at immigrants’ initial court hearings Wednesday, replacing them with a video advising people of their rights.
Advocates who observed court proceedings said the video was confusing and difficult to understand, and said they feared the new system would not give immigrants a fair shot in cases that decide whether they will be deported.
The new system went into place at immigration courts in New York and Miami, according to multiple sources. Details were sketchy, as the policy was applied only to immigrants who were not represented by lawyers, meaning that in some instances there were no observers in the courtroom.
The immigration court in San Francisco is not among those where the videos are being used in a pilot program, but eventually interpreters are expected to be replaced there as well.
The Chronicle was first to report the new policy, shortly after immigration judges were told about it in June. Some judges have since raised concerns, and their union hopes to negotiate changes with the Justice Department, which runs the courts.
The department says replacing interpreters with videos at initial court appearances will save money. The main purpose of such initial hearings is to inform immigrants of their rights and schedule further proceedings.
After the video is shown, immigrants who want to ask questions of the judge will have no way of doing so unless they have a bilingual attorney on hand. If they don’t, judges will have to try to track down an interpreter who happens to be free or use a telephone interpreting service.
Advocates say the new system is likely to lead to confusion among some immigrants, who might miss their next hearing as a result. Missing a hearing can be grounds for deportation.
Witnesses who were in court in New York on Wednesday said the video was roughly 20 minutes long and featured Christopher Santoro, the principal deputy chief immigration judge of the immigration courts. As he spoke in English, the video was dubbed in Spanish with Spanish subtitles. After the video, immigrants received an 11-page FAQ handout in Spanish.
Joan Racho-Jansen, an organizer with New Sanctuary Coalition, which provides non-attorney volunteers to immigrants, said the video was slickly produced but difficult to understand even for Spanish speakers with whom she watched. She also said it spent considerable time on the immigrants’ right to accept “voluntary departure” from the U.S.
Immigrants in the courtroom “were either asleep or very, very frightened because they were saying things (in the video) that were scary,” Racho-Jansen said. “We had (experienced) volunteers who spoke Spanish and they just kept shaking their heads and felt disturbed by language that was far too confusing for them to understand.”
She said the video was full of “legalese” that would go over the heads of even fluent Spanish speakers — and many Central American immigrants speak indigenous languages and little or no Spanish.
The handout, viewed by The Chronicle, was clear but technical, with a volume of information that could challenge people from rural foreign countries who have no familiarity with courts.
“I asked the interpreters what they thought (of the video), and they said it was very confusing, that the person who was dubbing occasionally couldn’t pronounce or didn’t understand the word they were saying so they said it incorrectly,” Racho-Jansen said.
She said interpreters were present in the New York courtrooms and that judges used them after the video. It’s not clear if the Justice Department scheduled them to be there or if they were in court for other reasons.
The department declined to comment and refused The Chronicle’s request to view the video.
San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.
The continuing denigration of Due Process by EOIR is appalling. This time, in addition to the real victims, the migrants who are forced to use this rancid system, EOIR is taking a “cheap shot” at the professional interpreters who have helped the foundering agency keep its head above water for years.
Sorry to see Principal Deputy Chief Judge Chris Santoro participating in this scam. Chris is someone I always admired and who was always very helpful and supportive to me during my career.
Where is Congress on this ugly and unnecesasry mess? Certainly, requiring EOIR to conform to Due Process by providing live interpretation ought to be a “bipartisan no-brainer.”
AG Barr moves forward with immigration court changes
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr has moved forward with a regulation changing the way immigration courts handle appeals, expanding the ability of that court to issue decisions that bind the way all immigration judges must decide cases.
The final version of the proposal, which will be published Tuesday, backs away from other changes after the public raised concerns the appellate body would have too much discretion over precedent.
Barr’s first major regulatory change to the immigration courts continues efforts started by his predecessor, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to tighten the ways immigrants can pursue a right to stay in the country. As first reported by The Chronicle, the regulation originally proposed during the George W. Bush administration was revived under President Trump and sent for review in April.
The version set for publication drops some of the more controversial provisions of the original proposal but expands the ability of the appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals, to issue binding decisions about immigration law.
A senior Department of Justice official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity called the regulation a “cleanup rule more than anything else.” But, the official said, the administration believes it’s important to make the courts “as efficient or as effective through the process as possible.”
The immigration courts are separate from the federal judiciary and exist entirely under the control of the Department of Justice and attorney general. The lower courts hear arguments as to why immigrants should be legally allowed to stay in the U.S. and decide whether they should be deported.
Appeals of those decisions are reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under current law, those decisions remain unpublished, and thus not binding on the entire system unless a majority of all members of the board vote to publish it. According to the Department of Justice, the board averages less than 30 such decisions each year.
The new regulation creates another way for decisions to become binding — at the direction of the attorney general. Such a change could allow the attorney general to shape all immigration judges’ decisions by selecting which appellate decisions should become precedent.
The final regulation also expands the circumstances under which the Board of Immigration Appeals can hear cases for potential binding precedent, including “the need to resolve a complex, novel, unusual, or recurring issue of law or fact” in the immigration courts, which would allow the board to take up cases that pose what the department views as a repeat issue in the lower courts. It also would allow the board to weigh parts of the case that lawyers did not bring up at appeal.
One aspect of the proposal that the administration chose not to pursue was expanding judges’ ability to issue cursory opinions that had no written explanation. The Bush-era version would have allowed judges to consider their time and resources in doing so, which the Trump administration opted against. The final version also bowed to concerns and dropped a proposal that would have allowed two out of three judges behind a decision to make their own ruling precedent.
Under Trump, the administration has taken a keen interest in the immigration courts as it seeks to tackle the nearly million-case backlog that allows many migrants seeking asylum and other rights to stay in the country as they wait years for their case to work through the system.
Sessions began using the attorney general’s power to refer cases to himself for review. Under immigration law, the attorney general has the final say over the immigration courts system, similar to the Supreme Court in the federal judiciary. Sessions issued several binding decisions that limited the right to claim asylum for domestic violence and gang violence victims, and he sped up the court process by reducing judge’s discretion to close or postpone cases.
That authority would still exist under this new rule, but the attorney general now could also opt to have a decision with which he agrees issued as binding and skip reviewing the decision himself.
No wonder they don’t want to use the regulatory process, preferring to “rule by fiat” instead. As this example shows, promulgating a regulation in the face of widespread and well-reasoned public opposition can turn out to be problematic in later court challenges.
The proposed relgulation was a recycled “relic” from the Bush II Admnistration. But, it’s not like the Obama Administration did much for improving Due Process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court. Honestly, I think that they kind of liked the idea of a subservient, captive, “go along to get along” system that functioned as a bureaucracy yet looked like a court, originally pioneered under Bush II.
Obviously, part of the game here is to misuse the ostensible Immigration “Court” precedent process to shore up the DOJ’s ability to defend DHS’s most extreme positions in the Article III courts. In other words, the Immigration Courts now serve both the interests of DHS Enforcement and the litigating attorneys at OIL who defend DHS’s orders of removal in the Courts of Appeals.
The rights of the individuals, who are supposed to be the focus of this system, have become nominalized, at best. But, some Article III Courts either haven’t bothered to figure this out or else know and just don’t care because, hey, dead, tortured, raped, and otherwise brutalized deportees don’t usually make headlines in the local papers. Out of sight, out of mind.
While DOJ does still “go through the motions” of soliciting briefs on new precedents, such solicitations reach a much smaller audience than do proposed regulatory changes. Also, since the DOJ routinely ignores all the cogent arguments in the briefs and plows ahead with its obviously “predetermined” precedent resolution, some groups have undoubtedly given up on the EOIR “fake” amicus briefing process, preferring instead to marshal their resources for an Article III court challenges. There, real judges still appear to actually read and respond to many, if not all, legal arguments and sometimes are persuaded by them.
For example, our “Roundtable” amicus briefs have had considerable influence in the Article III courts after the same or similar arguments were largely ignored by EOIR and the AG.
But, as I keep suggesting, what if everyone could work together to actually improve Due Process and fix the broken Immigration Court system, rather than having to devote limited high-level pro bono time and resources to fending off further outrageous assaults on the system by the DOJ and DHS? It would also free up time for the Article III Courts which in the near future are likely to have their civil dockets dominated and likely overwhelmed by petitions for review showcasing the sloppy and defective work emanating from the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and their “pedal faster, cut more corners, quality and fairness be damned” philosophy.
Nice work, Tal. Great to have you “back in the immigration headlines again.”
WASHINGTON — The number of undocumented immigrant children in U.S. custody is reaching breaking-point levels again, months after the Trump administration had reduced the total in shelters in response to anger over policies that kept children there.
The recent increase is largely due to a surge in the number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border rather than an administration policy. Overall crossings this year have skyrocketed to decade-high levels.
As of Thursday, the number of undocumented immigrant children in U.S. custody had increased to more than 13,000, according to figures obtained by The Chronicle. The number is a near-record high, and puts the shelter network that the Department of Health and Human Services runs to keep such children in custody near maximum capacity.
Trump administration officials have asked Congress for nearly $3 billion more to increase shelter capacity. Without it, they say, Health and Human Services could run out of money for the system by June.
While the shelter network has come under increased attention in the aftermath of President Trump’s separation of families at the border last summer in order to prosecute the parents, the vast majority of children in the system come to the U.S. by themselves.
The 13,000 figure has been exceeded only once before. Last fall, the total surpassed 14,000 children in custody for the first time in history, topping out close to 15,000.
That was due mainly to an administration policy under which Immigration and Customs Enforcement rigorously screened adults who were applying to take the children out of custody. The change slowed the process and often deterred such sponsors, usually family members, from coming forward. ICE also arrested some for being undocumented immigrants.
The practice so infuriated members of Congress that in a government funding bill in February, they barred ICE from using the information it collected as part of the screenings to arrest immigrants.
The Trump administration instituted a policy in December to try to release undocumented children from its custody more quickly, rescinding its requirement to fingerprint every adult in the home where the child would be living. Only the adult sponsoring the child is fingerprinted now.
By January, that had brought the number of children in custody below 11,000, according to Health and Human Services, with thousands of beds available.
Always great to get Tal’s timely and highly readable reporting!
What’s the solution? Well, it’s notthe Trump Administration’s “preferred solution” of allowing the Border Patrol to mindlessly rocket vulnerable kids back to the Northern Triangle to be killed, tortured, exploited, abused, or forced to join gangs. It’s actually part of a worldwide trend that has seen more and more of the total refugee population comprised of children. So, this phenomenon shouldn’t have come as a surprise to a competent Administration focused on dealing with refugee situations humanely under the laws.
A rational solution would be to work closely and cooperatively with NGOs with expertise in child refugees (like, for example, Kids In Need Of Defense (“KIND”) or the Safe Passage Project), pro bono lawyers, and communities to figure out what is in the best interests of these children.
Then, pursue the right options: Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (”SIJS”) for some; expedited grants of asylum through the Asylum Office under the Wilberforce Act for others; TPS for others, recognizing the reality that there is an “ongoing state of armed conflict” in the Northern Triangle; an exercise of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) for others; and humane and organized repatriation for others, where that is actually in the child’s best interests.
There are plenty of tools available under existing laws to deal with this issue. We just have an Administration that refuses to use them and prefers to create a “crisis” to justify “throwing children under the bus.” Mistreating children is cowardly and bodes ill for the future of any country that permits it to happen. What goes around comes around!
Bizarro world: Pelosi angry over Trump plan to send illegal crossers to sanctuary cities. By Nolan Rappaport
Apparently, President Donald Trump is about to make life much easier for aliens with children who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.
The Flores Settlement Agreement prevents him from detaining, for more than 20 days, children apprehended after making an illegal crossing into the United States. And because all Hell broke loose when he separated the children from their parents, he is now releasing their parents, too.
But according to his tweets on Friday, that isn’t all he is going to do for them.
I’m sure he was being sarcastic when he said this should make them very happy, but it really should make the Democrats very happy. The government would be providing these families with free transportation to places that are welcoming undocumented aliens, i.e. the sanctuary cities.
In fact, many of them are headed for sanctuary cities anyway. In 2014, California, which is a sanctuary state, was home to between 2.35 million and 2.6 million undocumented immigrants. Nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants lived there. Roughly one in ten California workers was an undocumented immigrant. And the population of undocumented aliens in California has gotten even largersince then.
But it turns out that Trump was right: The Democrats are upset.
I was astonished to see an article entitled, “Pelosi fumes over White House plan to release immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities.”
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
*************************************
It’s always difficult to take anything Trump says seriously, particularly about immigration.
I think Pelosi was reacting to 1) the tone of Trump’s threat; 2) his use of human lives as pawns and bargaining chips (something he has done before with the Dreamers); 3) his continuing threats to misuse Presidential power to “punish enemies;” and 4) the lack of any serious coordination that would accompany a good faith plan.
On the other hand, as shown in this article by Tal Kopan of the SF Chronicle, California and San Francisco officials appear ready to welcome and help any migrants sent their way or who are released and choose to settle in California.
2020 Democrats grapple with immigration message as border crossings surge
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Democrats credit their 2018 midterm success to focusing on pocketbook issues and avoiding engaging with President Trump on immigration They may not have that luxury in 2020.
The U.S. is on pace to receive more migrants at the southern border — many of whom are seeking asylum — in fiscal year 2019 than in any year in over a decade. At current rates, more than 750,000 migrants would either be caught trying to cross the border illegally or show up at a valid crossing without authorization to enter. The Trump administration says it is unable to handle the influx, and photos of migrants held in pens under a bridge in El Paso last month made national headlines.
But aside from condemning Trump’s immigration policies as cruel contributors to the problem, Democrats have largely avoided talking about border-security ideas. Most of the party’s presidential candidates have focused on expanding access to health care and other economic measures intended to boost the middle class, and have touched on immigration only in broad strokes.
But that could change very soon — and should, some experts say.
“Trump wants to turn the 2020 election into a debate between GOP border hawks and Democratic open borders-types,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice. “Democrats would be wise to turn the debate into Trump’s cruelty and incompetence versus Democrats’ practical solutions. … I think it’s a time for serious people to step up with serious ideas.”
Trump threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico before backing away from the idea last week. But he’s made clear that just as they were in 2016, immigration issues will be at the center of his 2020 campaign. On Friday, the Trump campaign released a video consisting of comments from Democratic presidential contenders downplaying the situation at the border, with text declaring, “Democrats do not want to keep Americans safe.”
Democrats consistently attack Trump’s immigration comments and agenda, but tend to limit discussion of their own policies to promoting paths to citizenship for sympathetic populations of undocumented migrants. Some worry that if they don’t have a clear plan to address the increasing numbers of asylum seekers at the border, Trump could ride the issue to victory again.
“This is going to be the cannon fodder for the Trump campaign and for Republicans in general,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a senior member of Congress’ Progressive Caucus and Hispanic Caucus. “I think that we need to be proactive. … The hard edge is going to want nothing but Trump’s policy, of which there is none. I think the vast middle are looking for somebody taking the lead to try to solve the issue, as opposed to continuing to use it” politically.
Two of former President Barack Obama’s top communications strategists agreed.
“We need to go on offense as soon as humanly possible,” former Obama national security spokesman Tommy Vietor said last week on the “Pod Save America” podcast. “We can’t sit back and say just, ‘No wall, no fence,’ and let him hammer us until (the) election.”
Former Obama chief speechwriter Jon Favreau added, “The point that Democrats don’t make enough is, we always say that his immigration policy is cruel, which it is, but it’s also dumb. It just doesn’t work.”
Although Grijalva has not endorsed any of the Democratic candidates for president, he praised former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro for releasing a formal immigration policy last week, making him the first candidate to do so.
Castro’s proposal includes the Democratic staples of offering a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” — young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors — as well as the broader undocumented population. It would rescind many Trump administration policies, including the ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries and other nations, and pour money and diplomatic resources into the Central American nations that many of the migrants are fleeing.
Castro also proposes progressive positions like breaking up Immigration and Customs Enforcement and redistributing its functions. He also would make it no longer a crime to cross the border illegally, leaving it up to immigration courts to handle the civil offenses related to being in the country without authorization.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke comes from the border city of El Paso, but when he served in the House, he played no leadership role in immigration debates. O’Rourke wrote a Medium post last week on the issue and offered a set of 10 proposals that included expanding legal immigration and investing in border infrastructure and Central America.
Other candidates have also spoken up about immigration, without making it a central theme of their campaigns. The Chronicle reached out to the major declared candidates for their policies, and all the ones who responded supported a pathway to citizenship for at least some undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. But none offered many specifics about what they would do at the southern border, other than encouraging aid to Central America.
California’s Kamala Harris has engaged on the issue as a senator, questioning the Department of Homeland Security on its policies and being an outspoken advocate of Dreamers. Last week, she introduced a bill that would allow Dreamers who are temporarily protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act to be paid for work in congressional offices. She frequently cites her own life story as the child of two immigrants. But as a candidate, Harris has said little about her border policy proposals and has made economic issues her signature.
A spokeswoman for New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said he would reform the immigration system while “enforcing our laws and securing our borders in ways consistent with our values.”
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wants a “humane and secure” system that “dismantles inhumane deportation programs,” restructures ICE and puts “the sanctity of families at the forefront,” according to his campaign.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren supports comprehensive immigration reform, reversing cuts in aid to Central America and “making sure we provide the support needed so mamas don’t have to flee with their babies for their lives,” according to an aide.
The lack of engagement by the presidential field is indicative of broader soul-searching within the party, including in the House. Progressive Caucus co-chairwoman Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said she is part of a group working on “principles” for the party. O’Rourke’s successor in his House seat, Rep. Veronica Escobar, said she spoke to the Democratic caucus during a recent closed-door meeting about the need to come up with a plan.
“The Trump administration does everything it can to fuel the flames of fear and discord and xenophobia, and we have to demonstrate an alternative to that,” Escobar said. “So I do think presidential candidates need to lean in.”
But not every Democrat thinks going on offense on immigration would be wise. Swing district Democrats largely avoided the issue in the 2018 midterms — they were “queasy” at the idea of getting near it, Grijalva said — and some Democrats hope to repeat their success by side-stepping it again, at least for now.
“We had a 35-day national conversation about border security, and it ended with Donald Trump engaging in an unconditional surrender,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a member of party leadership, referring to the partial government shutdown over border wall funding. “The 116th Congress, from the perspective of House Democrats, will continue to be about lowering health care costs and enacting a real infrastructure plan, and trying to do those two things in a bipartisan fashion.”
He said Democrats’ focus in the presidential race should be distinguishing themselves in the primary. “It’s not necessarily clear to me that in that context there’s a lot of daylight on immigration,” Jeffries said. “Once somebody emerges as a Democratic nominee, then there will be an opportunity to lay out a contrasting vision with the xenophobe-in-chief Donald Trump.”
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign press secretary, Brian Fallon, who now runs the left-aligned advocacy group Demand Justice, argued that Democrats should avoid debating on Trump’s terms.
“In 2020, Donald Trump can be expected to do the same thing that he did leading up to the 2018 midterms, which is try to manufacture political controversies on his issues,” Fallon said. “Getting wrapped around the axle on the terrain that he wants to fight on is a losing strategy, and he would love the first, second, and third issue in October of 2020 to be immigration. And if we are trying to choose our preferred issue, it should be health care.”
A senior aide for Trump’s re-election campaign confirmed that Trump would again be running on a border security message.
“He’s made that a cornerstone of his campaign since Day One — that’s not going to change,” said the aide, who requested anonymity to speak more freely. “Democrats are denying the crisis at the border. They want to see who can go the furthest left as they try and not address the issue at hand. They want to abolish ICE, they want to tear down existing barriers, they want to decriminalize border crossings. At what point are we addressing what is a true crisis at the southern border?”
One risk for Democrats is letting the loudest and most progressive voices define the issue for the party, said Ali Noorani, executive director of the moderate immigration advocacy group the National Immigration Forum. Many progressives, for example, want to abolish ICE, a proposal that could be unpopular with swing voters.
“I think the challenge for the party writ large, whether it’s the presidential candidates or Congress, is the perception that Democrats are just against whatever Trump is for on immigration, and a lot of the political conversation is sucked up by the progressive element in the House,” Noorani said.
The 2020 candidates should quickly articulate their own vision on the issue, he added. “Otherwise, Trump will define the Democrats’ position for them.”
Some Republicans join Democrats in believing Trump has left room in the middle with his aggressive immigration agenda. GOP strategist Kevin Madden, a veteran of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, said Trump’s immigration message hurt Republicans with suburban swing voters in the midterms, and that “pragmatism” would sell.
“It can’t just be reflexive opposition,” Madden said. “If you know this debate is going to take place, why would you wait until the president starts attacking you to come up with your plan and your message? You have to have an anticipatory self-defense on this so you have a greater opportunity to win the middle.”
A rational, humane, generous immigration policy that benefits the economy while rejecting the politics of bombast, hate, racism, and ignorance should be a winner in 2022 just like it was in 2018. That’s particularly true because Trump and the GOP have self destructed on health care, another winning issue for the Dems.
As I mentioned last week, I think the immigration policy agenda offered by Julian Castro is where America must go sooner or later to survive and prosper. He might not be the candidate, but his common-sense, fact-based proposal could be the “winning ticket.”
Trump administration begins effort to strip work permits for immigrant spouses
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — After nearly two years of delays, the Trump administration is moving ahead with its plan to strip work permits for the spouses of many high-skilled visa holders, an effort that could jeopardize tens of thousands of immigrants families in California alone.
Rolling back the permits could have sweeping consequences for the Bay Area, where tech companies heavily rely on high-skilled immigrants. Many of those workers come to the U.S. with spouses and children, and the loss of the spousal work permits could imperil many families’ ability to stay in the country or be convinced to come work here.
The step forward for the regulation comes as a federal appeals court ran out of patience with the administration’s delays in issuing it.
The proposed regulation was officially sent to the White House for review on Wednesday, a government database shows. The procedural step means that the Department of Homeland Security has completed its work on the policy and is ready for its official publication. The White House will now put the regulation through review with other agencies, a process that can take anywhere from days to months, depending on the complexity of the regulation.
At issue are work permits for nearly 100,000 immigrants who are here with spouses working on a high-tech visa and seeking a green card. (Spouses and children of H-1B visa holders have H-4 visas granting residence.) The largest share of those, nearly 30,000 of them, live in California, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
In 2015, the Obama administration created the H-4 employment authorization document, or H-4 EAD as it’s commonly known, to allow those spouses to work until the family can get green cards. Getting those permanent residency permits is a process that can often take many years, especially for immigrants of countries like India and China that send a lot of high-skilled talent to the U.S. In the meantime, their spouses are unable to work legally in the U.S. unless they have an employer who can separately sponsor them for a visa.
Since going into effect, there have been more than 90,000 immigrants approved for work permits under the program.
President Trump pledged early on to rescind the H-4 permit program, but the administration has been delayed in doing so. As it continued to promise the regulation would eventually come, a lawsuit challenging the program has been on hold in the courts.
That changed in December, when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped granting the Department of Homeland Security extensions and ordered that the case proceed. A group of technology workers called Save Jobs USA who argue the program jeopardizes American jobs sued the Obama administration and, after losing in D.C. federal court, appealed the case. The Trump administration after taking power had successfully had it postponed until December.
The reasons for the delay, and sudden step forward, are not entirely clear. Government lawyers had assured the court the rule was being written and reviewed, it was just taking time. In September, the lawyers had predicted a rule would be out in three months. The first briefs in the case are due in March.
Experts suspect that with the government finishing a separate rule blocking immigrants who might use public benefits, and with the lawsuit moving forward, the work was expedited. Once the rule is published, the government could argue the court should indefinitely postpone the lawsuit, as the underlying regulation is being rewritten. That would avoid the chance that the appellate court decides the program is legal, setting a precedent contrary to the objectives of the Trump administration.
“The agency doesn’t want to risk having a judicial ruling that would go against it,” said Natalie Tynan, an attorney with Hunton Andrews Kurth who worked in the Department of Homeland Security for over 11 years. “In general from an agency’s perspective, the agency prefers to issue its regulations rather than have the courts opine on what the regulations should say. So any opportunity to moot out litigation is a positive one for the agency.”
Fifteen members of California’s Congressional delegation signed a letterurging the Trump administration to preserve the permit program last year. They included Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose and Ro Khanna, D-Fremont. Eshoo and Lofgren introduced legislation late last year to keep the H-4 program in place.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that manages the program, said the agency is “committed to upholding our nation’s immigration laws, helping ensure they are faithfully carried out, and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system designed to protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers,” according to spokeswoman Jessica Collins.
She would not comment on the substance of the regulation, but noted that nothing would be final until the regulatory process is complete.
Once the White House signs off on the draft regulation, it will be published in the Federal Register. That will start a clock on a comment period, usually 30 to 90 days, after which the administration legally has to review the comments and make any necessary revisions. Only after that can the regulation be finalized, and litigation could potentially hold it up for months or years longer.
Still, the uncertainty of future job status and symbolism of the proposal from the Trump administration could have immediate ripple effects for families that rely on the visas and the companies that are already struggling to attract top talent.
“If you have 100,000 people who are extremely well-educated and on the path to getting green cards, and are either indirectly stimulating economic growth or directly creating jobs for native-born Americans by starting companies in this country, why would you pull out the rug from all these people?” said Doug Rand, co-founder of Boundless, a tech startup designed to help immigrants navigate the legal system. Rand also worked on the original H-4 regulation in the Obama administration.
Rand pointed out that by rule, only families already approved for green cards qualify for the work visa, meaning the government has already determined there are no Americans who could be working the high-skilled job. The spouses are only ineligible for work because of the lengthy backlog that exists for countries including India.
More than 93 percent of those affected are women, which especially concerns advocates. Lofgren has also co-authored legislation that would eliminate per-country green card caps, helping to alleviate the backlog.
“It undermines the agency and dignity of these spouses and it harms their career prospects, it leaves them less empowered to leave abusive situations,” said Amanda Baran, an attorney and advocate with the San Francisco-based Immigrant Legal Resource Center and a veteran of the Department of Homeland Security.
“It limits the success of women,” Baran continued. “I feel like it’s just another part of Trump’s larger agenda, which is to expel immigrants, prevent them from coming in and make life uncomfortable for them here and compel them to leave.”
So much for the Trump Administration’s bogus claim that it favors legal immigration or wants a “merit based” immigration system. No, “White Nationalist Nation” is staunchly xenophobic. But, they often choose to lie about that, like most other things.
The Trumpsters actually probably can convince high-skilled workers who contribute to our society and our economy to take their skills elsewhere: Canada, China, Mexico, etc.
Funding deal blocks ICE from arresting adults taking in undocumented children
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — A government funding deal on the verge of congressional passage would block federal officers from arresting undocumented immigrants solely because they come forward to take in migrant children.
The constraint on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency comes after The Chronicle reported that the government had made scores of such arrests — including more than 100 people who were taken into custody from July through November despite having no criminal record. Immigrant and child welfare advocates had assailed the practice as endangering young people by keeping them in detention longer and by giving immigrants an incentive to conceal potential sponsors’ true identities.
The population of undocumented children in government custody skyrocketed to record levels as immigration officials investigated the potential sponsors.
The ban on arresting sponsors with no criminal record is included in a bill to fund roughly one-quarter of the government through September. The appropriations legislation is the product of weeks of intense negotiations to avert a repeat of the partial shutdown that began Dec. 22 and lasted 35 days.
The Senate passed the bill Thursday and the House was expected to follow suit before government funding runs out Friday. The White House said President Trump would sign it.
House Democrats pushed strongly for the provision during negotiations over the funding package, said a Democratic aide who was not authorized to speak publicly about the talks. Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz offered the specific legislative language.
“Arresting potential sponsors only ensures that children who flee dangerous circumstances will languish longer in overly crowded detention facilities,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Democrats agree, this cruel, immoral Trump trap does nothing to make America safer.”
At issue is the process of finding homes for undocumented immigrant children who come to the U.S. by themselves or are separated from an adult at the border.
Those children end up detained in a national network of shelters until they can be released to an adult, usually a relative. The shelters are designed to be a temporary bridge for often-traumatized children to more stable homes, in which they can pursue their case to stay in the country legally.
To sponsor a child, adults have long had to go through background checks for any criminal history or other red flags that might endanger the child. Immigration status is not weighed as a risk factor.
But last year the Trump administration added additional layers of review, including working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to run fingerprints of potential sponsors. That caused concern within the immigrant community that sponsors, many of whom are undocumented themselves, could be ensnared in the administration’s no-limits immigration enforcement. The revelation that ICE had in turn used that information to arrest potential sponsors, most of whom had no criminal record, confirmed that fear.
Under the administration’s policies, the number of children in custody reached nearly 15,000, breaking records even after the government halted the practice it implemented in spring 2018 of separating families at the border. In December, the Department of Health and Human Services stopped requiring that every additional adult in a sponsor’s home be fingerprinted, a practice that had greatly slowed the process, keeping children detained longer. Since then, the number of children in custody has dropped to 11,500.
The government funding bill bars the administration from detaining or moving to deport undocumented immigrants based solely on information provided by Health and Human Services, which runs the unaccompanied children program, unless it provides evidence of a past child abuse-related felony or potential human trafficking.
Thanks, Tal, for putting the Chron “on top” of this grotesque mistreatment of children by the Trump Administration. Obviously, your courageous and timely reporting of abuses of human rights that DHS was trying to hide from public viewhas had a “real life” impact on legislation and people’s lives.
The intentional abuses of children and families that the Trump Administration is perpetrating in the name of our country is simply outrageous! Bad things happen to countries that make child abuse a national policy!
It also shows that the Democrats are right in challenging funding for abusive, wasteful, and unnecessary DHS detention. While they lacked the votes to succeed this time around, the battle certainly will continue, on both legislative and litigation fronts. As it does so, the full range of abuses, corruption, and unethical behavior by the Administration and DHS will be exposed and recorded for posterity.
As I’ve said before, it’s time for Article III Judges who have been lied to by Administration officials and whose orders to reunite families have been arrogantly ignored by the Trump Administration to put some of the Administration officials who have planned and carried out these gross human right abuses and thumbed their noses at court orders in jail for contempt.
Again, Tal, thanks for all you do for “truth, justice, and the American way!” And, thanks to conscientious legislators of both parties who helped put these restrictions on anti-social behavior in place. When the system works for the greater good, everyone benefits.
Minority caucuses wield power in Nancy Pelosi’s House majority
Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Nearly every night last year, sometimes nearing midnight, Michelle Lujan Grisham’s phone would ring late. On the line would be Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Sometimes, the San Francisco Democrat would call again at 6 a.m. to update Lujan Grisham, a New Mexico Democrat who was then the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, on House negotiations involving immigration and border security.
“Really,” said Lujan Grisham, now the governor of New Mexico. “To her credit.”
The calls were a reflection of how seriously Pelosi, now the House speaker, and other Democratic leaders take the influence of the Hispanic caucus and two counterpart groups that represent black and Asian Pacific American lawmakers. Pelosi’s No. 2, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., even helped Lujan Grisham crash an immigration meeting with President Trump, taking her to the White House unannounced as part of his entourage.
It’s a relationship that Pelosi will need to maintain as she presides over the Democratic House majority this year. After all, as Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, a former representative and member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, put it: “Nancy knows how to count.”
More than 100 of 235 Democratic members in the new House, many from California, belong to one of the three affinity groups known collectively as the Tri-Caucus. It will arguably be the most powerful voting bloc for the Democratic majority.
The growth in the groups’ membership — in the last Congress, the Tri-Caucus had roughly 90 core House members — reflects the diverse lineup of Democrats who won election in the November midterms. It also signals that their influence will be wide-ranging.
Among the Tri-Caucus members will be eight committee chairs, leading panels ranging from environmental issues to homeland security to small business. They will have representatives in the No. 3, 4 and 5 spots in Democratic leadership. Lobbying firms in Washington are hiring staff with connections to the Tri-Caucus, a signal of their importance.
The groups’ chairs, two of whom represent California districts, said in interviews that they plan to work together to shape legislation, speak up for often-overlooked communities and show people of color that there is a place for them in Washington.
“We’re going to be active on just about every policy area that this House of Representatives will concern itself with,” said Rep. Joaquín Castro, D-Texas, now chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Pelosi has already committed to convene weekly meetings between leadership and the chairs of the Tri-Caucus groups. During her successful campaign to reclaim the speaker’s gavel, Pelosi sat down with each of the groups — and made promises to them.
She told the Hispanic caucus that she would call for a vote on the Dream Act, which would make permanent the protections that young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors were granted under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. That bill is also a priority for the Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Pelosi said the House would vote quickly on legislation to reinstate some provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were negated in a 2013 Supreme Court decision, a priority of the black caucus. She also has backed Tri-Caucus members for leadership and selective committee spots.
The groups that make up the Tri-Caucus have solidified their cooperation the past two years in response to Trump administration policies on immigration and civil rights issues. A key moment came in January 2018 when Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., convened a conference call to sell fellow Hispanic caucus members on a Senate-negotiated DACA-border security deal. It would have extended protection for DACA recipients and incorporated some White House demands for limits on two vehicles for legal immigration — a “diversity lottery” for entrance to the U.S. from countries with few immigrants, and restrictions on immigrants’ ability to sponsor relatives for U.S. entry.
Those were particularly sensitive proposals for the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus. The diversity lottery is the main source of migration to the U.S. from sub-Saharan Africa and a major driver of immigration from Asia, and family visas are also extensively used by Asian immigrants. But at stake were protections for DACA recipients — a priority for the Hispanic caucus.
“Accepting any element of that truly would have pitted one of our groups against the other,” said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), chairwoman of the Asian Pacific American caucus.
