"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
The True Costs of Deportation
When immigrant parents of American children are expelled, the lives of their loved ones can fall apart. Here are the stories of three families who faced financial ruin, mental health crises—and even death.
By JULIA PRESTON
Before her husband was deported, Seleste Hernandez was paying taxes and credit card bills. She was earning her way and liking it.
But after her husband, Pedro, was forced to return to Mexico, her family lost his income from a job at a commercial greenhouse. Seleste had to quit her nursing aide position, staying home to care for her severely disabled son. Now she is trapped, grieving for a faraway spouse and relying on public assistance just to scrape by.
She went, in her eyes, from paying taxes to depending on taxpayers. “I’m back to feeling worthless,” she says.
This story was published in partnership with The Guardian.
Across the country, hundreds of thousands of American families are coping with anguish compounded by steep financial decline after a spouse’s or parent’s deportation, a more enduring form of family separation than President Trump’s policy that took children from parents at the border.
Trump has broadened the targets of deportation to include many immigrants with no serious criminal records. While the benefits to communities from these removals are unclear, the costs—to devastated American families and to the public purse—are coming into focus. The hardships for the families have only deepened with the economic strains of the coronavirus.
A new Marshall Project analysis with the Center for Migration Studies found that just under 6.1 million American citizen children live in households with at least one undocumented family member vulnerable to deportation—and household incomes drop by nearly half after deportation.
About 331,900 American children have a parent who has legal protection under DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program that shields immigrants who came here as children. After the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Trump’s cancellation of the DACA program was unlawful, those families still have protection from deportation. But the court’s decision allows the president to try to cancel the program again. The debate cast light on the larger population of 10.7 million undocumented immigrants who have made lives in the country, raising pressure on Congress to open a path to permanent legal status for all of them.
We examined the impact of the wrenching losses after deportation and the potential costs to American taxpayers of expelling immigrants who are parents or spouses of citizens.
After an immigrant breadwinner is gone, many families that once were self-sufficient must rely on social welfare programs to survive. With the trauma of a banished parent, some children fail in schools or require expensive medical and mental health care. As family savings are depleted, American children struggle financially to stay in school or attend college.
Three families in northeastern Ohio, a region where Trump’s deportations have taken a heavy toll, show the high price of these expulsions.
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Julia’s article at the link.
This isn’t the first time in American history that invidious racially-motivated enforcement of bad laws has been used to dehumanize or abuse “the other” while hiding behind transparently fake law enforcement pretexts. Poll taxes anyone?
A straightforward reading of our Constitution says that removing parents of U.S. citizens and breadwinners of American families without compelling reasons for doing so (lacking in these cases) is unreasonable and therefore a violation of Due Process. It’s time to stop doing the immoral and unconstitutional! And it’s past time to insure that public officials like Albence who promote and defend these assaults on humanity are removed from power.
The current institutions of Government have initiated, carried out, or failed to stop these illegal actions. Disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, considering that the nation, by minority vote, enabled a scofflaw White Nationalist regime in 2016.
But, voters still have the political power to oust the abusers of humanity and purveyors of racially-motivated lies and false narratives, and to insist on long-overdue changes to the system to make due process (reasonability), fundamental fairness, and equality under the law a reality for the first time in U.S. history, rather than continuing to be the Constitution’s intentionally unfulfilled promises.
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
New
• Opening dates for some non-detained courts: The Honolulu Immigration Court resumed hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 15, 2020. The Boston, Buffalo, Dallas, Hartford, Las Vegas, Memphis, and New Orleans Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, June 29, 2020. Hearings in non-detained cases at all other immigration courts are postponed through, and including, Thursday, July 2, 2020. All immigration courts will be closed Friday, July 3, 2020, in observance of Independence Day. The Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Saipan, and San Diego Immigration Courts will resume hearings in non-detained cases on Monday, July 6, 2020.
• USCIS Reopening
o Newark Asylum Office Remains Closed due to unresolved facility issues unrelated to COVID-19
o New York City and Brooklyn field offices are listed as closed to public, emergency services only
Closures
• EOIR Operational Status & Standing Orders
• EOIR Case Status
• EOIR Updates via Twitter
• ICE Updates (Including ERO and Detention)
• USCIS Updates
• Consular Updates
• NY Courts Updates
Guidance:
• IJ Email Filings
• BIA Email Filings
• EOIR Standing Orders
• EOIR Electronic Signature Guidance
• EOIR Update Regarding EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak
• USCIS’s Signature Policy Update
• USCIS Announces Flexibility for Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny
TOP NEWS
Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA
Roll Call: The president in a series of tweets said the administration “will be submitting enhanced papers shortly in order to properly fulfil the Supreme Court’s ruling & request of yesterday.” See also DACA ‘unlawful’ despite Supreme Court ruling, acting Homeland Security chief says.
The Trump Administration Will Soon Deny Work Permits For Asylum-Seekers Who Enter The US Without Authorization
BuzzFeed: The policy, which was first reported by BuzzFeed News in August, will make asylum-seekers who do not cross into the country at a port of entry ineligible for a work permit in most cases. It will also delay the time it takes for those who apply for asylum — either while already in the US or after crossing the border and referred to immigration court — to become qualified to get a work permit, from 150 days to 365 days. Asylum-seekers who do not file for protections within one year of arriving in the US will also be denied a permit.
Businesses Brace for Possible Limits on Foreign Worker Visas
NYT: Citing the economic slump, the president could act this week to limit H-1B, L-1 and other visas as well as a program allowing foreign students to work in the United States after they graduate. See also Chasing Down the Rumors: Possible Extension and Expansion of Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Immigrants into the United States (Updated 6/19/20).
Representation at Bond Hearings Rising but Outcomes Have Not Improved
TRAC: Despite the rising rate of representation, bond grant rates have not improved. During FY 2015 and FY 2016, immigration judges granted bond at 56 percent of these hearings. This fell to 50 percent during FY 2018. Since FY 2018 grant rates have fallen to 48 percent where they have remained for the last three years.
Immigration attorneys face courtroom challenges amid pandemic
Roll Call: Even when courts remain open, to limit personal contact, most procedures are being conducted by video or phone, lending themselves to technical problems that have made it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for lawyers to effectively consult with clients.
Under Threat & Left Out: NYC’s Immigrants And The Coronavirus Crisis
CUF: Immigrant New Yorkers are enduring unprecedented economic pain from the pandemic—and yet they have been almost completely shut out of government programs created for those in need, CUF research and interviews with two dozen nonprofit leaders reveals.
LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS
Supreme Court Upholds DACA, Says DHS’s Decision to Rescind Was Arbitrary and Capricious
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DHS’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, also known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (DHS v. Regents of the University of California) AILA Doc. No. 20061801
CA2 Remands CAT Claim of Petitioner Who Fled El Salvador After Threats from MS-13 Gang
The court held that the IJ erred as a matter of law in penalizing the petitioner for her prompt flight from El Salvador after members of the MS-13 gang threatened her, and thus remanded her Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim to the BIA. (Martinez De Artiga v. Barr, 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061702
Naturalization Applicants File Lawsuit Seeking to Compel USCIS to Conduct Immediate Administrative Naturalizations
The plaintiffs, who have been unable to complete the naturalization process due to the COVID-19 pandemic, filed a class action lawsuit seeking to compel USCIS to conduct immediate administrative naturalizations pursuant to INA §337(c). (Campbell Davis, et al. v. USCIS, et al., 6/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061602
BIA Issues Decision on K-1 Visas and INA §204(c)(2)
The BIA ruled that an individual who has conspired to enter into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws by seeking to secure a K-1 fiancé(e) nonimmigrant visa is subject to the bar under INA §204(c)(2). Matter of R.I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20061909
BIA Reverses Finding That Misdemeanor Conviction Was a Particularly Serious Crime
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding that conviction for third degree assault under N.Y.P.L. 120.00(01) was a particularly serious crime because offense was a misdemeanor unaccompanied by any unusual circumstances. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of G-G-G-, 2/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061608
BIA Upholds Termination of Proceedings Based on Regulatory Violation
Unpublished BIA decision upholds termination of proceedings based on DHS’s violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.3(d), which requires ICE to decide within 48 hours of arrest whether to grant bond and issue an NTA. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Pablo-Nicolas, 2/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061607
BIA Holds Florida Aggravated Battery Does Not Require Use of Force
Unpublished BIA decision holds that aggravated battery under Fla. Stat. 784.045(b) does not require the use of force because it encompasses simple battery against a pregnant victim. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Campbell, 2/19/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061606
CA1 Finds Salvadoran Petitioner Was Denied Her Statutory Right to Counsel
The court concluded that the IJ had denied the Salvadoran petitioner her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice, and found that the assistance of a lawyer likely would have affected the outcome of her removal proceedings. (Hernandez Lara v. Barr, 6/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061905
CA4 Reverses District Court with Instructions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints in Travel Ban Case
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, the court reversed the district court’s order of May 2, 2019, denying the government’s motion to dismiss, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice. (IRAP v. Trump, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 17031332
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Asylum to Petitioner from Trinidad and Tobago Who Alleged Membership in Three PSGs
The court held that petitioner had failed to demonstrate a legal or constitutional error in BIA’s denial of his application for asylum based on membership in three alleged particular social groups (PSGs), including children unable to leave a family relationship. (Alexis v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061704
CA6 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Who Was Found to Be a UAC at Time of Entry
The court held that the IJ had properly exercised jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, who had entered the United States when he was 18 years old and had been found by an immigration official to be an unaccompanied child (UAC) at the time of his entry. (Garcia v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061811
CA9 Holds Petitioner’s Conviction for Being Under the Influence of Amphetamines in California Rendered Him Removable
The court held that a conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code §11550(a) is divisible with respect to controlled substance and thus the modified categorical approach applied and was satisfied. (Tejeda v. Barr, 6/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061913
CA9 Rejects Petitioner’s Equal Protection Challenge to Former Derivative-Citizenship Statute
The court dismissed the petition for review, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the second clause of INA §321(a)(3) discriminates by gender and legitimacy and thus violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. (Roy v. Barr, 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061912
CA11 Upholds Denial of Motion to Remand Based on Ineffective Assistance Where Petitioner Did Not Substantially Comply with Lozada
The court held that petitioner had failed to meet the three Lozada requirements for presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that his attorney lacked actual notice of allegations that his assistance had been ineffective. (Point Du Jour v. Att’y Gen., 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20061914
AILA and Partners Send Letter to EOIR on Premature Decision to Resume the Non-Detained Docket
AILA, the Council, CLINIC, HRF, NIJC, and NIPNLG sent a letter to EOIR recommending that the overwhelming majority of non-detained hearings be postponed for the duration of the national public health emergency. Additional recommendations include a moratorium on the issuance of in absentia orders. AILA Doc. No. 20061500
DHS Extends Flexibility in Requirements Related to Form I-9 Compliance
DHS announced that it has extended the flexibilities in rules related to Form I-9 compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic by an additional 30 days. The accommodations, which now expire on July 19, 2020, include discretion to defer physical presence requirements and extension for NOIs served in 3/20. AILA Doc. No. 20032033
DHS Acting Secretary Announces Extension of Border Restrictions
DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf announced that DHS will continue to limit non-essential travel at U.S. land ports of entry with Canada and Mexico due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that DHS’s Canadian and Mexican counterparts agree with the need for this extension. AILA Doc. No. 20042031
DHS Announces Imposition of Visa Sanctions on Burundi
DHS announced that it has imposed visa sanctions on Burundi “due to lack of cooperation in accepting its citizens and nationals ordered removed” from the U.S. As of 6/12/20, the Bujumbura U.S. embassy has discontinued issuance of all NIVs, with exceptions, for Burundian citizens and nationals. AILA Doc. No. 20061903
RESOURCES
• Post-Supreme Court Decision DACA Guidance
• ILRC: Understanding the 2020 Supreme Court Decision on DACA
• ILRC: All Those Rules About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (June 2020)
• Practice Alert: Impact of the Supreme Court Decision Blocking DACA Rescission
• Practice Alert: Submitting Initial Evidence and Documentation with Form I-485
• Practice Alert: COVID-19 and the Public Charge Rule
• Practice Alert: Presidential Proclamations Suspending Entry Due to 2019 Novel Coronavirus
• Think Immigration: Fight Back Against Chevron Deference in Asylum and Withholding Cases
• DHS Releases Fact Sheet on Measures on the Border to Limit the Further Spread of Coronavirus
• Bite-Sized Ethics: Dual Representation and Secrets Between Clients
• OIG: CBP Struggled to Provide Adequate Detention Conditions During 2019 Migrant Surge
• COVID-19 IN ICE CUSTODY Biweekly Analysis & Update
• Practice Advisory: Criminal Consequences Updates from the BIA and the Ninth Circuit
EVENTS
Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes
• 6/22/20 The Supreme Court Ruling on DACA: What the Decision Means and What’s Next
• 6/24/20 I-730 Petition Training
• 6/24/20 Thought Getting an EAD Was Straightforward? Think Again!
• 6/26/20 Our Asylum System at Grave Risk: What You Can Do
• 6/29/20 Climate Change and Migration: Converging issues, diverging funding
• 7/7/20 Winning Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture Cases
• 7/15/20 Understanding Motions to Reopen Based on Changed Country Conditions
• 7/16/20-7/30/20 Webinar Series: Navigating Refugee and Asylee Issues in Turbulent Times
• 7/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law
• 7/22/20 Tax Issues in Immigration Cases
• 7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020
• 7/30/20 How to File a Successful Travel Ban Waiver
• 8/5/20 Unraveling Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
• 8/18/20 Strategies for I-601 Waivers in Adjustment of Status Cases
• 8/26/20 Immigration Legal Services in Rural America
• 8/27/20 Crafting a Winning Particular Social Group for an Asylum Case
• 9/14/20 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2020
• 9/22/20 Defenses to Denaturalization
• 9/23/20-10/7/20 3-Part Webinar Series: Integrating Technology to Improve Your Immigration Legal Services
• 10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices
ImmProf
Monday, June 22, 2020
• Immigration Article of the Day: Banished and Overcriminalized: Critical Race Perspectives of Illegal Entry and Drug Courier Prosecutions by Walter Goncalves
Sunday, June 21, 2020
• Will President Trump Make the Supreme Court’s DACA Decision a 2020 Presidential Campaign Issue?
• Immigration Article of the Day: Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism by Ava Ayers
Saturday, June 20, 2020
• “DREAMers” versus the Labels Used in Government Documents and Judicial Opinions in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by Professor Maritza Reyes
• The Equal Protection Claim in the DACA Cases
• World Refugee Day – June 20, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
• DACA Victory at Supreme Court Is Precarious at Best
• Immigration Article of the Day: Injustice and the Disappearance of Discretionary Detention Under Trump by Robert Koulish
• DACA, College and University Students, and the Future of U.S. Immigration Law
• Guest Post: Minyao Wang, The Supreme Court Decides DACA Rescission Case on Administrative Law Grounds, Avoids Deciding Lawfulness of DACA
Thursday, June 18, 2020
• Responses to Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
• Breaking News: DACA Lives Another Day: Supreme Court Vacates Rescission of DACA
• Some more good news: DACA recipients and noncitizens win two lawsuits that provide financial assistance
• Proposed rule bars colleges from granting covid-relief funds to DACA recipients [Updated 6/17/20]
• Immigration Article of the Day: Law Enforcement in the American Security State by Wadie Said
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
• From the Bookshelves:Mary Jordan, The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump
• Immigration Article of the Day: Making Litigating Citizenship More Fair
• UVA to Enroll Students Regardless of Immigration Status
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
• From The Bookshelves: Dominicana by Angie Cruz
• Immigration and Economic Recovery Symposium
Monday, June 15, 2020
• White House attributing covid-19 increase to travel from Mexico
• Lessons learned in the journey from Prop. 187 to DACA to the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court Denies Cert in United States v. California, State Sanctuary Law Case
• Supreme Court Grants Review in Immigration Detention Case
• DACA Decision Today?
• “Trump is quietly gutting the asylum system amid the pandemic President Trump’s election-year push to foreground immigration is officially in full swing.”
******************************************
Just so we understand the work authorization fraud perpetrated by Trump, currently individuals who seek asylum at ports of entry are “rocketed” to the exceptionally dangerous countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (none of which have a fair or functional asylum system) without any hearing, meaningful inquiry, or a chance to apply for asylum in the U.S. So, no work authorization for them.
Those who recognize the futility of trying to use our now-fraudulent legal system to seek protection might therefore cross the border and turn themselves in to DHS or, if they get to the interior, turn themselves in to USCIS to apply for asylum. They also will be denied work authorization under the latest Trump scheme.
So you, or some Federal Judge actually interested in upholding the law, might ask: “Who gets employment authorization under Trump’s shell game?” The answer: “Pretty much nobody.”
So, you might then ask, isn’t this government fraud, or at least grotesque dishonesty? Of course, but but “it’s only refugees not real humans.” For the most part, courts have allowed Trump, Miller, and company to run roughshod over the legal rights and humanity of migrants, with particular emphasis on looking the other way while refugees, women, and children are abused. So, it’s OK. Until Trump strips you of your humanity without recourse.
As if to punctuate the Constitutional malpractice and moral vapidity of everyone on the Supremes save Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on Saturday Trump headed off to Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of one of the worst White-led race massacres in U.S. history, one day after the Juneteenth Celebration of African American liberation in America. Given the timing and the mood in the nation, it appeared to be a rather thinly disguised attempt by Trump to provoke some type of racial confrontation that he thought would benefit him politically.
Failing that, and faced with a smaller-than-expected audience of cultists, Trump turned the evening into a celebration of lies, hate, insults, and racism – denying the reality and justice of the cause of equal justice under law, using an offensive racist slur against Asians, and “joking” about 120,000 dead Americans and his totally incompetent response to COVID-19, to name just a few of his very public and intentional transgressions against our nation and human decency.
America can’t go any further with Trump and the GOP in charge and promoting an agenda of racism, hate, division, and inequality. But, it’s also worth asking how far we can get with eight Justices who are willfully blind to Trump’s obvious racism, his and his lawyers’ lack of honesty and ethics, and the toxic agenda of prolonging and deepening institutional racism in America that he and his supporters so ardently back and, to be frank, only exists because the Supremes and other government institutions have assisted it for more than a century.
Over more than two centuries, America has failed over and over again to deal honestly, ethically, courageously, and realistically with racism. At some point, the failures will become fatal for our republic. A house divided against itself and with rot in its structural integrity cannot stand for much longer.
Those in charge might claim cluelessness; but you should have your eyes open to the pernicious effects of malicious incompetence and systemic racism.
Some day, the full ugly truth of the Trump regime, its unbridled racism, its total dishonesty, its selfishness, its cowardice, its “crimes against humanity,” and our disgraceful national complicity will come out. It always does. Then, those in charge who were derelict their duties and looked the other way in the face of tyranny and needless human suffering will claim “just doing my job” or “how could I have known?” Don’t let them and/or their apologists get away with the “Nuremberg Defense!”We know; they know! It’s time to end the willful blindness and deal with the truth!
Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions, Never!
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers perform in concert at the BankAtlantic Center in Sunrise, Florida on July 15, 2008. (UPI Photo/Michael Bush) (Newscom TagID: upiphotos868523) [Photo via Newscom]Alaa Elassar Writer CNN Digital
(CNN)The family of the late Tom Petty has filed a cease and desist notice to the Trump campaign after one of the musician’s songs was played at the President’s campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Petty’s 1989 hit “I Won’t Back Down” was played on Saturday evening at the rally, which drew a smaller-than-expected crowd of supporters.
“Trump was in no way authorized to use this song to further a campaign that leaves too many Americans and common sense behind,” the family said in a tweet Saturday.
“Both the late Tom Petty and his family firmly stand against racism and discrimination of any kind. Tom Petty would never want a song of his used for a campaign of hate. He liked to bring people together,” according to the tweet.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
Good for them!
As my former Georgetown Law Refugee Law & Policy students will remember, I used the lyrics of “Refugee” from “Professor Tom” & The Heartbreakers as a “teaching vehicle” about what it’s really like to be a refugee (something of which Trump and his cult of mindless supporters seem entirely unaware).
Perhaps a better choice from Tom’s collection, and one more indicative of the true state of our nation and Trump’s recent poll performance would have been Tom’s“Free Fallin’.”
She’s a good girl, loves her mama
Loves Jesus and America too
She’s a good girl, crazy ’bout Elvis
Loves horses and her boyfriend too
It’s a long day living in Reseda
There’s a freeway runnin’ through the yard
And I’m a bad boy ’cause I don’t even miss her
I’m a bad boy for breakin’ her heart
And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’
All the vampires walkin’ through the valley
Move west down Ventura boulevard
And all the bad boys are standing in the shadows
All the good girls are home with broken hearts
And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’
Free fallin’, now I’m free fallin’, now I’m
Free fallin’, now I’m free fallin’, now I’m
I want to glide down over Mulholland
I want to write her name in the sky
Gonna free fall out into nothin’
Gonna leave this world for a while
And I’m free, free fallin’
Yeah I’m free, free fallin’
The Supreme Court will soon release an opinion on the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s choice to end DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Former President Barack Obama rolled out DACA in June 2012 and the Department of Homeland Security implemented it two months later through a memorandum signed by then-Secretary Janet Napolitano.
DACA, based on a conventional concept of prosecutorial discretion, provided limited relief from removal – and work authorization — to nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants through a discretionary tool called “deferred action.” All legal challenges to DACA, including one by campus immigration hawk former Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, failed. How will the story of DACA be remembered?
Much more than the sum of its parts, DACA will be remembered as an intriguing political story. For years, Congress introduced legislation known as the DREAM Act to provide legal status and a pathway to permanent residency for young undocumented college students. Congress has debated some kind of comprehensive immigration reform over two decades. All of these efforts failed. Said President Obama in announcing DACA “In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.” DACA helped jump start the forceful movement across the nation calling for the vindication of the rights of immigrants.
Politics led to DACA’s demise. Donald J. Trump ran for President on a strident immigration enforcement ticket and promised to end the “unconstitutional” DACA policy. After the inauguration of President Trump and lobbying by some Republican leaders to keep DACA, the administration tried to terminate DACA and announced this “wind-down” in a press conference on September 5, 2017. Ultimately, political slogans, not reasoned analysis, were offered for the decision to end DACA.
The Trump administration’s arguments to the Supreme Court defending the end of DACA were also mired in politics. In a convoluted fashion that wended its way to federal appellate courts from coast to coast, the administration—through a series of Interim leaders—simply ignored the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and in an arbitrary and capricious way simply declared that DACA was “illegal,” and that they were required to end it.
The claim that DACA was somehow “illegal” was simply not true. No court found it to be, and for good reason. Deferred action is an instrument of discretion used to shield “low priority” immigrants from deportation. Deferred action enjoys a long history and legal foundation across both Republican and Democratic administrations. The administration could decide to end the policy it, but not by undertaking the judicial role of declaring their own exercise of discretion to be unconstitutional. As it did in the Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) in manufacturing a civil rights rationale for a U.S. citizenship question on the 2020 Census that would have chilled the participation of many Latina/os and immigrants, the administration simply misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court should require the Department of Homeland Security to undertake the searching analysis of facts and policy impacts, and honestly proceed, playing by the rules. Those with DACA have upheld their part of this bargain, and the administration must abide by open and fair procedures required by the law.
DACA will be reminisced as a story about human pain and hope. Said one DACA recipient one author spoke to described September 5, 2017, the day the end of DACA was announced as “just an awful day … Eventually you just get over the pain, get over the fear… and you continue to organize and protect your community in whatever way you can.” Throughout the time DACA has been tossed around in the courts, thousands continue to build families of their own, work in the frontlines of healthcare. and revitalize classrooms in colleges and universities across the country, a phenomenon we have seen first-hand as educators and administrators. DACAmented recipients are now our doctors, lawyers, and schoolteachers, repaying the investment this country has made in them.
If the Supreme Court fails to require the Trump administration to abide by the law, as we urge the Court to insist upon, those with DACA must live under a cruel Sword of Damocles, with no clear pathway to legal permanent residency. They deserve an honest policy determination, and the Supreme Court should insist on no less. Ultimately, it will take Congressional action to enact a DREAM Act, and comprehensive immigration reform to enable these young members a means to their rightful place in our society.
—–
Kevin R. Johnson is Dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law and Mabie/Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicanx Studies.
The Administration’s legal arguments for ending DACA have always been bogus and totally disingenuous. Indeed, they do not even remain the same from case to case as they essentially make it up as they go along. It’s all transparently about White Nationalist racism and political pandering to a right-wing minority.
The lower Federal Courts were nearly unanimous in rejecting the DOJ’s various bad faith positions. Yet, instead of unanimously blasting the Administration’s frivolous request for intervention out of hand and sending a clear message reaffirming the lower courts, the Supremes granted an audience to Francisco and the scofflaws.
By failing to send a clear message that political pandering at the expense of human lives won’t be tolerated, the Supremes have encouraged further lawless, insidiously-motivated acts by Trump and have become part of the problem. They have also unconscionably undermined lower Federal Court judges who stood up for the rule of law and removal of racism and dehumanization from government decision-making.
Among other things, the Supremes have helped Trump: eradicate 40 years of asylum protections without legislation; weaponize the public charge provisions without legislation to endanger the health an safety of immigrants and our nation; allowed invidious discrimination against Muslims and refugees; and forced individuals who have established reasonable fear of persecution to be sent to live in life-threatening squalor and danger in Mexico.
The Supremes’ majority has knowingly and intentionally furthered the “Dred-Scottification” of “the other” in society: African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, asylum seekers, the poor, women, prisoners, workers, etc. Our nation is paying the price.
The solution eventually will require a re-examination of the type of individuals to whom we give the high privilege of serving on the Supremes: their humanity, courage, practical experience, empathy, moral leadership, problem-solving ability, expertise in furthering human rights, and commitment to equal justice for all, rather than narrow “out of the mainstream” political ideologies. The current outrage and unrest over the lack of social justice in the United States can be tied directly to the Supremes’ lack of leadership, courage, humanity, and an overriding commitment to equal justice under law. This version of the Supremes has failed America. Badly!We must do better in the future!
A.G. Sessions To Citizens Who Suffered Police Brutality: Go Pound Sand! — Busting Criminals, Deporting Migrants, Policing Tech Employers Takes Precedence Over Civil Rights Protections For African Americans — Baltimore Police Reformers Forced To “Stand Alone” After DOJ Pulls The Rug Out From Underneath Them!
Lynh Bui and Peter Hermann report in the Washington Post:
“BALTIMORE — After the federal government released a searing 163-page report in August condemning police practices in Baltimore, the police commissioner and mayor stood with Justice Department leaders to promise sweeping reform.
Change was necessary, they all said, not only to prevent riots like those that flared after the fatal injury of Freddie Gray in police custody, but also to repair the long-standing, deep rift between the city’s crime-weary residents and its police.
Nine months later, Baltimore’s mayor and police commissioner again appeared before television cameras committing to overhaul the department.
But this time they stood by themselves.
“I’m asking the citizens of Baltimore to have faith that we will continue this work,” Mayor Catherine E. Pugh (D) said Tuesday. “It’s hard to deny that these kinds of reforms don’t need to take place in the city of Baltimore.”
On January 12, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Justice Dept. reached a deal for sweeping reforms to the Baltimore Police Dept. after a federal review found officers routinely violated residents’ civil rights. (Reuters)
The pledge to move ahead came hours after the Justice Department had asked a federal judge Monday night to postpone the department’s tentative police reform agreement with the city — part of a wider review of pacts nationwide ordered by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The Baltimore consent agreement was announced days before President Trump took office and awaits a federal judge’s approval.
The request for a delay, which a judge has yet to rule on, left some Baltimore leaders and residents worried that momentum will wane and leave the city stuck in a familiar loop of unfulfilled promises.
Interim city solicitor David Ralph would not comment Tuesday on whether the city would file a response to the requested delay.
“It seemed clear that Justice was going ahead with these reforms, and now all of a sudden they don’t want to do it,” said Rebecca Nagle, co-director of the No Boundaries Coalition, a resident-led advocacy group.
The coalition helped organize residents to relay their experiences with city police to the Justice Department team that produced the August report, which concluded that the police department engaged in unconstitutional policing that discriminated against black residents in poor communities through illegal searches, arrests and stops for minor offenses.
“Residents invested two years doing this, and not going forward will destroy the trust that has built up,” Nagle said.
In Sessions’s two-page memo ordering the review of open and pending consent decrees, he said the department wants to guarantee the pacts are in line with Trump administration goals of promoting officer safety and morale while fighting violent crime.
“The Federal government alone cannot successfully address rising crime rates, secure public safety, protect and respect the civil rights of all members of the public, or implement best practices in policing,” the memo stated. “These are, first and foremost, tasks for state, local and tribal law enforcement.”
***********************************
Now, I might only be a retired Immigration Judge, not a civil rights expert. But, even I can tell that if “state and local law enforcement” could solve this problem, it would have been solved long ago.
In fact, until former Attorney General Lynch and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division intervened, state and local authorities had done their best to cover up the problems and avoid solving them. (And, I’m by no means a fan of Lynch. She was appropriately very interested in vindicating the civil rights of African Americans. But, she wasn’t interested in the human rights of mostly Hispanic women and children fleeing Central America. She aided and abetted a system of detention of such asylum applicants under deplorable conditions and hustling their cases through the U.S. Immigration Courts, in too many cases without full due process or even an opportunity for a fair hearing.)
No, what Sessions really means is that he has no interest whatsoever in helping the African American community vindicate their civil rights if it means clamping down on police abuses. After all, look at the “bang up” job that Session’s home state, Alabama, did on protecting its African American citizens from police abuses for most of the 20th Century. Who could ask for more? Or, perhaps we should get a “second opinion” from Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) who had his head split open by one of Sessions’s “police heroes,” an Alabama State Trooper.
That’s what often happens when the Feds rely on states and localities to vindicate citizen’s constitutional rights against the state’s own abuses. Classic “fox guarding the chicken coop.” Sort of like having Jeff Sessions protecting the rights of minorities and migrants. Yeah, the Birmingham Bridge incident was in 1965. But, Sessions and his gang have every intention of turning the clock back to those “glory days” of state’s rights.
Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was “silenced” on the Senate floor for “disparaging” a colleague, Senator Sessions, by putting the truth about his tone-deaf record on civil and human rights “in the record.” But, silenced or not, Warren spoke truth about Session’s unsuitability to serve as Attorney General. Sadly, African Americans, Hispanics, members of the LGBT community, and migrants are likely to find out first hand that “he’s still the same ol’ Jeff.”
PWS
04-04-17
*********************
The George Floyd tragedy became largely inevitable the day a GOP-controlled Senate approved the stunningly unqualified 21st Century Jim Crow Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to be Attorney General. The results have been disastrous for America and particularly cruel and tragic for people of color.
Also, as a nation, we need to come to grips with the failure of our Supreme Court. The Supremes’ GOP majority has enabled, encouraged, and embraced the Trump regime’s “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”
They have disgracefully and improperly failed to set a legal and moral tone condemning racist abuses, kids in cages, gross mistreatment of legal asylum seekers, and blatantly biased and unconstitutional Immigration “Courts” that parody and mock justice every day. The Supremes have enabled GOP schemes to erode minority voting and political power and have shown a willingness bordering on enthusiasm to accept bogus security-related “pretexts” for racism, religious intolerance, and abuse of authority by Trump and his cronies!
Unwarranted favoritism toward unethical Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco is also a glaring, inexcusable problem. America’s future depends on a more diverse, courageous, humane, and “connected with reality” Supreme Court; a Court that rejects bogus right-wing legal nonsense; a Court that solves problems, upholds individual legal rights, insists on “equal justice for all,” and holds the Executive fully accountable for intentional abuses of authority.
This November, vote like you life and the survival of our democratic republic depend on it! Because they do!
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American RacismStephen Miller & Count Olaf Evil Twins, Notorious Child AbusersCaitlin Dickerson National Immigration Reporter NY TimesMichael D. Shear White House Reporter NY Times
Caitlin Dickerson and Michael D. Shear report for The NY Times:
From the early days of the Trump administration, Stephen Miller, the president’s chief adviser on immigration, has repeatedly tried to use an obscure law designed to protect the nation from diseases overseas as a way to tighten the borders.
The question was, which disease?
Mr. Miller pushed for invoking the president’s broad public health powers in 2019, when an outbreak of mumps spread through immigration detention facilities in six states. He tried again that year when Border Patrol stations were hit with the flu.
When vast caravans of migrants surged toward the border in 2018, Mr. Miller looked for evidence that they carried illnesses. He asked for updates on American communities that received migrants to see if new disease was spreading there.
In 2018, dozens of migrants became seriously ill in federal custody, and two under the age of 10 died within three weeks of each other. While many viewed the incidents as resulting from negligence on the part of the border authorities, Mr. Miller instead argued that they supported his argument that President Trump should use his public health powers to justify sealing the borders.
On some occasions, Mr. Miller and the president, who also embraced these ideas, were talked down by cabinet secretaries and lawyers who argued that the public health situation at the time did not provide sufficient legal basis for such a proclamation.
That changed with the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic.
Within days of the confirmation of the first case in the United States, the White House shut American land borders to nonessential travel, closing the door to almost all migrants, including children and teenagers who arrived at the border with no parent or other adult guardian. Other international travel restrictions were introduced, as well as a pause on green card processing at American consular offices, which Mr. Miller told conservative allies in a recent private phone call was only the first step in a broader plan to restrict legal immigration.
But what has been billed by the White House as an urgent response to the coronavirus pandemic was in large part repurposed from old draft executive orders and policy discussions that have taken place repeatedly since Mr. Trump took office and have now gained new legitimacy, three former officials who were involved in the earlier deliberations said.
One official said the ideas about invoking public health and other emergency powers had been on a “wish list” of about 50 ideas to curtail immigration that Mr. Miller crafted within the first six months of the administration.
Latest Updates: Coronavirus Outbreak in the U.S.
President Trump stepped up criticism of China, part of an international backlash over the outbreak.
J. Crew becomes first major retailer to declare bankruptcy; Disney’s empire faces vast challenges.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments by conference call, and the public will be able to listen.
See more updates
Updated 48m ago
More live coverage: Global Markets New York
He had come up with the proposals, the official said, by poring through not just existing immigration laws, but the entire federal code to look for provisions that would allow the president to halt the flow of migrants into the United States.
Administration officials have repeatedly said the latest measures are needed to prevent new cases of infection from entering the country.
“This is a public health order that we’re operating under right now,” Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters earlier this month. “This is not about immigration. What’s transpiring right now is purely about infectious disease and public health.”
The White House declined to comment on the matter, but a senior administration official confirmed details of the past discussions.
The architect of the president’s assault on immigration and one of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers inside the White House, Mr. Miller has relentlessly pushed for tough restrictions on legal and illegal immigration, including policies that sought to separate families crossing the southwest border, force migrants seeking asylum to wait in squalid camps in Mexico and deny green cards to poor immigrants.
Mr. Miller argues that reducing immigration will protect jobs for American workers and keep communities safe from criminals. But critics accuse him of targeting nonwhite immigrants, pointing in part to leaked emails from his time before entering the White House in which he cited white nationalist websites and magazines and promoted theories popular with white nationalist groups.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
As America suffers, immigrants, both legal and “undocumented,” are on the front lines of those “essential workers” risking their lives to keep us healthy, safe, fed, and clothed.
Meanwhile, neo-Nazi Miller remains “on the dole” — publicly funded for putting out a steady stream of discredited and xenophobic actions designed to exploit, dehumanize, and demean many of the most courageous and necessary among us.
Can it get any more vile and disgusting?
Nearly 55 years after the end of WWII, Trump & Miller are reviving many aspects of the racist ideology and actions that we supposedly fought to end forever. Raises the question of who really won the war.
Always the opportunists, Trump and Miller now see the crisis that their “malicious incompetence” helped to aggravate as a chance to target both “Optional Practical Training” (“OPT”) for foreign students and Chinese students, one of the largest groups of those studying in the U.S. You can read about it in this article by Stuart Anderson in Forbes.https://apple.news/ADkCNTe_gTje__BlQ8c-8pg
Stuart Anderson Executive Director National Foundation for American Policy
OPT unquestionably benefits our country as well as the students, many of whom remain and become important parts of our society. The targeting of Chinese students certainly fits with the far right’s Anti-Asian movement that has helped spike a notable increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans during the pandemic. Could the revival of the Chinese Exclusion Act be far beyond on the Trump/Miller Jim Crow agenda?
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
When critics reach for analogies to describe Donald Trump — or look for examples of democratic deterioration — they tend to look abroad. They point to Russia under Vladimir Putin, Hungary under Viktor Orban, or Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump, in this view, is a type — an authoritarian strongman. But it’s a foreign type, and his corrupt administration is seen as alien to the American experience.
This is a little too generous to the United States. It’s not just that we have had moments of authoritarian government — as well as presidents, like John Adams or Woodrow Wilson, with autocratic impulses — but that an entire region of the country was once governed by an actual authoritarian regime. That regime was Jim Crow, a system defined by a one-party rule and violent repression of racial minorities.
The reason this matters is straightforward. Look beyond America’s borders for possible authoritarian futures and you might miss important points of continuity with our own past. Which is to say that if authoritarian government is in our future, there’s no reason to think it won’t look like something we’ve already built, versus something we’ve imported.
Americans don’t usually think of Jim Crow as a kind of authoritarianism, or of the Jim Crow South as a collection of authoritarian states. To the extent that there is one, the general view is that the Jim Crow South was a democracy, albeit racist and exclusionary. People voted in elections, politicians exchanged power and institutions like the press had a prominent place in public life.
There’s a strong case to be made that this is wrong. “To earn the moniker,” argues the political scientist Robert Mickey in “Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944-1972,” “democracies must feature free and fair elections, the safeguarding of rights necessary to sustain such elections — such as freedoms of assembly, association, and speech — and a state apparatus sufficiently responsive to election winners and autonomous from social and economic forces that these elections are meaningful.”
By that standard, the Jim Crow South was not democratic. But does that make it authoritarian? A look at the creation of Jim Crow can help us answer the question.
JAMELLE BOUIE’S NEWSLETTERDiscover overlooked writing from around the internet, and get exclusive thoughts, photos and reading recommendations from Jamelle. Sign up here.
Jim Crow did not emerge immediately after the Compromise of 1877 — in which Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South in return for the presidency — and the end of Reconstruction. It arose, instead, as a response to a unique set of political and economic conditions in the 1890s.
By the start of the decade, the historian C. Vann Woodward argued in his influential 1955 book “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” opposition to “extreme racism” had relaxed to the point of permissiveness. External restraining forces — “Northern liberal opinion in the press, the courts, and the government” — were more concerned with reconciling the nation than securing Southern democracy. And within the South, conservative political and business elites had abandoned restraint in the face of a radical challenge from an agrarian mass movement.
Mickey notes how the Farmers’ Alliance and Populist Party “clashed with state and national Democratic parties on major economic issues, including debt relief for farmers and the regulation of business.” What’s more, “A Colored Farmers’ Alliance grew rapidly as well, and held out the possibility of biracial coalition-building.” This possibility became a reality in states like Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina, where Populists joined with a majority-black southern Republican Party to support common lists of candidates in “fusion” agreements against an explicitly elitist and white supremacist Democratic Party. Populists and Republicans won their greatest victories in that era in North Carolina, where they captured the state legislature and governor’s mansion, as well as local and county offices.
Democrats, among them large landowners and “New South” industrialists, responded with violence. Democratic paramilitary organizations — called “Red Shirts” — attacked Populist and Republican voters, suppressing the vote throughout the state. In Republican-controlled Wilmington, N.C., writes Mickey, “Democratic notables launched a wave of violence and killings of Republicans and their supporters, black and white, to take back the state’s largest city; hundreds fled for good.”
This basic pattern repeated itself throughout the South for the next decade. Working through the Democratic Party, conservative elites “repressed Populists, seized control of the state apparatus, and effectively ended credible partisan competition.” They rewrote state constitutions to end the vote for blacks as well as substantially restrict it for most whites. They gerrymandered states to secure the political power of large landowners, converted local elective offices into appointed positions controlled at the state level, “and further insulated state judiciaries from popular input.” This could have been stopped, but the North was tired of sectional conflict, and the courts had no interest in the rights of blacks or anyone else under the boot of the Democrats.
The southern Democratic Party didn’t just control all offices and effectively staff the state bureaucracy. It was gatekeeper to all political participation. An aspiring politician could not run for office, much less win and participate in government, without having it behind him. “What is the state?” asked one prominent lawyer during Louisiana’s 1898 Jim Crow constitutional convention, aptly capturing the dynamic at work, “It is the Democratic Party.” Statehood was conflated with party, writes Mickey, “and party disloyalty with state treason.”
Southern conservatives beat back Populism and biracial democracy to build a one-party state and ensure cheap labor, low taxes, white supremacy and a starkly unequal distribution of wealth. It took two decades of disruption — the Great Depression, the Great Migration and the Second World War — to even make change possible, and then another decade of fierce struggle to bring democracy back to the South.
It’s not that we can’t learn from the experiences of other countries, but that our past offers an especially powerful point of comparison. Many of the same elements are in play, from the potent influence of a reactionary business elite to a major political party convinced of its singular legitimacy. A party that has already weakened our democracy to protect its power, and which shows every sign of going further should the need arise. A party that stands beside a lawless president, shielding him from accountability while he makes the government an extension of his personal will.
I’m not saying a new Jim Crow is on the near horizon (or the far one, for that matter). But if we look at the actions of the political party and president now in power, if we think of how they would behave with even more control over the levers of the state, then we might be on a path that ends in something that is familiar from our past — authoritarian government with a democratic facade.
*************************
“[T]he courts had no interest in the rights of blacks or anyone else under the boot of the [Jim Crow] Democrats.”
******************************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
*************************
Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket.
The head of the Federal Judges Association is taking the extraordinary step of calling an emergency meeting to address the intervention in politically sensitive cases by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, the Philadelphia-based judge who heads the voluntary association of around 1,100 life-term federal judges, told USA Today that the issue “could not wait.” The association, founded in 1982, ordinarily concerns itself with matters of judicial compensation and legislation affecting the federal judiciary.
Republicans defend Barr as Klobuchar looks forward to testimony
Lawmakers and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway commented Feb. 16 on President Trump’s tweets and the conduct of Attorney General William P. Barr. (The Washington Post)
On Sunday, more than 1,100 former Justice Department employees released a public letter calling on Barr to resign over the Stone case.
A search of news articles since the group’s creation revealed nothing like a meeting to deal with the conduct of a president or attorney general.
Rufe, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, could not be reached for comment late Monday.
The action follows a week of turmoil that included the president tweeting his outrage over the length of sentence recommended by career federal prosecutors for his friend Roger Stone and the decision by Barr to withdraw that recommendation.
In between, Trump singled out the judge in the Stone case, Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, for personal attacks, accusing her of bias and spreading a falsehood about her record.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe said to USA Today. “We’ll talk all this through.”
Trump began disparaging federal judges who have ruled against his interests before he took office, starting with U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. After Curiel ruled against Trump in 2016 in a pair of lawsuits detailing predatory marketing practices at Trump University in San Diego, Trump described him as “a hater of Donald Trump,” adding that he believed the Indiana-born judge was “Mexican.”
Trump keeps lashing out at judges
President Trump has a history of denouncing judges over rulings that have negatively affected him personally as well as his administration’s policies. (Drea Cornejo/The Washington Post)
Faced with more than 100 adverse rulings in the federal courts, Trump has continued verbal attacks on judges.
Rufe’s comments gave no hint of what the association could or would do in response.
Some individual judges have already spoken out critically about Trump’s attacks generally, among them U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a colleague of Jackson’s in Washington, and most recently, the chief judge of the court in Washington, Beryl A. Howell.
*******************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Will Trump & Barr eventually separate Article III Judges’ families or send them to danger zones in Mexico or the Northern Triangle to “deter” rulings against the regime? Will Mark Morgan and Chad Wolf then declare “victory?” Will their families be scattered to various parts of the “New American Gulag” with no plans to reunite them? Will they be put on trial for their lives without access to lawyers? Are there costs for failing to take a “united stand” for the rule of law, Constitutional Due Process, human rights, and the human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
Why does it take the case of a lifetime sleaze-ball like Roger Stone to get the “life-tenured ones” to “wake up” to the attacks on humanity and the rule of law going on under noses for the past three years?
(CNN)The Trump administration is reinforcing a tight deadline for immigration cases of unaccompanied migrant children in government custody in an effort to make quicker decisions about deportation, according to an email obtained by CNN.
The message seems designed to apply pressure on immigration judges to wrap up such cases within a 60-day window that’s rarely met and falls in line with a broader effort by the administration to complete immigration cases at a faster speed.
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said deadlines are “putting the judge between a rock and a hard place.”
“The only thing that can get done within 60 days is if someone wants to give up their case or go home or be deported,” Tabaddor told CNN.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration court system, sent the email last month to assistant chief immigration judges, reminding them that unaccompanied children in government custody are to be considered the same as detained adults for purposes of scheduling cases.
While the 60-day deadline cited in the email is not new, it’s difficult to meet for cases of unaccompanied kids, in part, because of the time it takes to collect the relevant information for a child who comes to the United States alone. As a result, cases can often take months, if not years, to resolve.
Last year, an uptick in unaccompanied children at the US-Mexico border strained the administration’s resources. Over the course of the 2019 fiscal year, Border Patrol arrested around 76,000 unaccompanied children on the southern border, compared to 50,000 the previous fiscal year.
Unaccompanied children apprehended at the southern border are taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security and referred to Health and Human Services. While in care at shelters across the country, case managers work to place a child with a sponsor in the United States, like a parent or relative.
Like adults and families who cross the US-Mexico border, unaccompanied children are put into immigration proceedings to determine whether they can stay in the United States.
The email from EOIR, dated January 30, says unaccompanied migrant children who are in the care of the government should be on a “60-day completion goal,” meaning their case is expected to be resolved within 60 days. It goes on to reference complaints received by the office of the director, but doesn’t say who issued the complaints or include a punishment for not meeting the completion goal.
EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly told CNN that she could not comment on internal communications.
Golden McCarthy, deputy director at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, which works with unaccompanied migrant children, said “it does take time to reach out to” a child’s caretaker or adults in the child’s life.
“We all know that many times the child doesn’t necessarily have the full picture of what happened; it does take time to reach out to caretakers and adults in their lives to understand,” McCarthy said.
Initiatives designed to quickly process cases have cropped up before.
The Obama administration tried to get cases scheduled more expeditiously but deferred to the judges on the timeline thereafter, whereas the Trump administration’s move seems to be an intent to complete cases within a certain timeframe, according to Rená Cutlip-Mason, chief of Programs at the Tahirih Justice Center and a former EOIR official.
The Trump administration also appears to be getting cases scheduled faster. In Arizona, for example, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Project has begun seeing kids called into immigration court earlier than they had been before.
In a statement submitted to the House Judiciary Committee in January, the group detailed the cases of children, one as young as 10 years old, who appeared before an immigration judge within days of arriving to the US.
“I think our clients and the kids we would work with are resilient,” McCarthy, the deputy director at the project, said. “But to navigate the complex immigration system is difficult for adults to do, and so to explain to a kid that they will be going to court and a judge will be asking them questions, the kids don’t typically always understand what that means.”
It can also complicate a child’s case since he or she may eventually move to another state to reunify with a parent or guardian, requiring the child’s case to move to an immigration court in that state.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department has rolled out a slew of other policies — such as imposing case quotas — to chip away at the nearly one million pending cases facing the immigration court system. Some of those controversial policies have resulted in immigration judges leaving the department.
In its latest budget request to Congress, the White House called for $883 million to “support 100 immigration judge teams” to ease the backlog.
*************************************
How to build a 1.3 million case backlog with no end in sight: Anatomy of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling:”
2017: Trump Administration “deprioritizes” unaccompanied minors, creating more docket chaos;
2020: Trump Administration “reprioritizes” unaccompanied minors, creating more docket chaos;
Result:
Unfairness to unaccompanied minors rushed through the system without due process;
Unfairness to long-pending cases continuously “shuffled off to Buffalo:”
Gross inconvenience to the public;
Demoralized judges whose dockets are being manipulated by unqualified bureaucrats for political reasons;
Growing backlogs with no rational plan for resolving them in the foreseeable future.
This reminds me of my very first posting on immigratoncourtside.com – from Dec. 27, 2016 —
SAVING CHILD MIGRANTS WHILE SAVING OURSELVES
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
They cross deserts, rivers, and territories controlled by corrupt governments, violent gangs, and drug cartels. They pass through borders, foreign countries, different languages and dialects, and changing cultures.
I meet them on the final leg of their trip where we ride the elevator together. Wide-eyed toddlers in their best clothes, elementary school students with backpacks and shy smiles, worried parents or sponsors trying to look brave and confident. Sometimes I find them wandering the parking garage or looking confused in the sterile concourse. I tell them to follow me to the second floor, the home of the United States Immigration Court at Arlington, Virginia. “Don’t worry,” I say, “our court clerks and judges love children.”
Many will find justice in Arlington, particularly if they have a lawyer. Notwithstanding the expedited scheduling ordered by the Department of Justice, which controls the Immigration Courts, in Arlington the judges and staff reset cases as many times as necessary until lawyers are obtained. In my experience, retaining a pro bono lawyer in Immigration Court can be a lengthy process, taking at least six months under the best of circumstances. With legal aid organizations now overwhelmed, merely setting up intake screening interviews with needy individuals can take many months. Under such conditions, forcing already overworked court staff to drop everything to schedule initial court hearings for women and children within 90 days from the receipt of charging papers makes little, if any, sense.
Instead of scheduling the cases at a realistic rate that would promote representation at the initial hearing, the expedited scheduling forces otherwise avoidable resetting of cases until lawyers can be located, meet with their clients (often having to work through language and cultural barriers), and prepare their cases. While the judges in Arlington value representation over “haste makes waste” attempts to force unrepresented individuals through the system, not all Immigration Courts are like Arlington.
For example, according to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (“TRAC”), only 1% of represented juveniles and 11% of all juveniles in Arlington whose cases began in 2014, the height of the so-called “Southern Border Surge,” have received final orders of removal. By contrast, for the same group of juveniles in the Georgia Immigration Courts, 43% were ordered removed, and 52% of those were unrepresented.
Having a lawyer isn’t just important – it’s everything in Immigration Court. Generally, individuals who are represented by lawyers in their asylum cases succeed in remaining in the United States at an astounding rate of five times more than those who are unrepresented. For recently arrived women with children, the representation differential is simply off the charts: at least fourteen times higher for those who are represented, according to TRAC. Contrary to the well-publicized recent opinion of a supervisory Immigration Judge who does not preside over an active docket, most Immigration Judges who deal face-to-face with minor children agree that such children categorically are incompetent to represent themselves. Yet, indigent individuals, even children of tender years, have no right to an appointed lawyer in Immigration Court.
To date, most removal orders on the expedited docket are “in absentia,” meaning that the women and children were not actually present in court. In Immigration Court, hearing notices usually are served by regular U.S. Mail, rather than by certified mail or personal delivery. Given heavily overcrowded dockets and chronic understaffing, errors by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in providing addresses and mistakes by the Immigration Court in mailing these notices are common.
Consequently, claims by the Department of Justice and the DHS that women and children with removal orders being rounded up for deportation have received full due process ring hollow. Indeed a recent analysis by the American Immigration Council using the Immigration Court’s own data shows that children who are represented appear in court more than 95% of the time while those who are not represented appear approximately 33% of the time. Thus, concentrating on insuring representation for vulnerable individuals, instead of expediting their cases, would largely eliminate in absentia orders while promoting real, as opposed to cosmetic, due process. Moreover, as recently pointed out by an article in the New York Times, neither the DHS nor the Department of Justice can provide a rational explanation of why otherwise identically situated individuals have their cases “prioritized” or “deprioritized.”
Rather than working with overloaded charitable organizations and exhausted pro bono attorneys to schedule initial hearings at a reasonable pace, the Department of Justice orders that initial hearings in these cases be expedited. Then it spends countless hours and squanders taxpayer dollars in Federal Court defending its “right” to aggressively pursue removal of vulnerable unrepresented children to perhaps the most dangerous, corrupt, and lawless countries outside the Middle East: El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), the institution responsible for enforcing fairness and due process for all who come before our Immigration Courts, could issue precedent decisions to stop this legal travesty of accelerated priority scheduling for unrepresented children who need pro bono lawyers to proceed and succeed. But, it has failed to act.
The misguided prioritization of cases of recently arrived women, children, and families further compromises due process for others seeking justice in our Immigration Courts. Cases that have been awaiting final hearings for years are “orbited” to slots in the next decade. Families often are spread over several dockets, causing confusion and generating unnecessary paperwork. Unaccompanied
2
children whose cases should initially be processed in a non-adversarial system are instead immediately thrust into court.
Euphemistically named “residential centers” — actually jails — wear down and discourage those, particularly women and children, seeking to exercise their rights under U.S. and international law to seek refuge from death and torture. Regardless of the arcane nuances of our asylum laws, most of the recent arrivals need and deserve protection from potential death, torture, rape, or other abuse at the hands of gangs, drug cartels, and corrupt government officials resulting from the breakdown of civil society in their home countries.
Not surprisingly, these “deterrent policies” have failed. Individuals fleeing so-called “Northern Triangle” countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have continued to arrive at a steady pace, while dockets in Immigration Court, including “priority cases,” have mushroomed, reaching an astonishing 500,000 plus according to recent TRAC reports (notwithstanding efforts to hire additional Immigration Judges). As reported recently by the Washington Post, private detention companies, operating under highly questionable government contracts, appear to be the only real beneficiaries of the current policies.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We could save lives and short-circuit both the inconsistencies and expenses of the current case-by-case protection system, while allowing a “return to normalcy” for most already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets by using statutory Temporary Protected Status (known as “TPS”) for natives of the Northern Triangle countries. Indeed, more than 270 organizations with broad based expertise in immigration matters, as well as many members of Congress, have requested that the Administration institute such a program.
The casualty toll from the uncontrolled armed violence plaguing the Northern Triangle trails only those from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. TPS is a well- established humanitarian response to a country in crisis. Its recipients, after registration, are permitted to live and work here, but without any specific avenue for obtaining permanent residency or achieving citizenship. TPS has been extended among others to citizens of Syria and remains in effect for citizens of both Honduras who needed refuge from Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and El Salvador who needed refuge following earthquakes in 2001. Certainly, the disruption caused by a hurricane and earthquakes more than a decade ago pales in comparison with the very real and gruesome reality of rampant violence today in the Northern Triangle.
Regardless, we desperately need due-process reforms to allow the Immigration Court system to operate more fairly, efficiently, and effectively. Here are a few suggestions: place control of dockets in the local Immigration Judges, rather than bureaucrats in Washington, as is the case with most other court systems; work cooperatively with the private sector and the Government counsel to docket cases at a rate designed to maximize representation at the initial hearings; process unaccompanied children through the non-adversarial system before rather
3
than after the institution of Immigration Court proceedings; end harmful and unnecessary detention of vulnerable families; settle ongoing litigation and redirect the talent and resources to developing an effective representation program for all vulnerable individuals; and make the BIA an effective appellate court that insures due process, fairness, uniformity and protection for all who come before our Immigration Courts.
Children are the future of our world. History deals harshly with societies that mistreat and fail to protect children and other vulnerable individuals. Sadly, our great country is betraying its values in its rush to “stem the tide.” It is time to demand an immigrant justice system that lives up to its vision of “guaranteeing due process and fairness for all.” Anything less is a continuing disgrace that will haunt us forever.
The children and families riding the elevator with me are willing to put their hopes and trust in the belief that they will be treated with justice, fairness, and decency by our country. The sole mission and promise of our Immigration Courts is due process for these vulnerable individuals. We are not delivering on that promise.
The author is a recently retired U.S. Immigration Judge who served at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington Virginia, and previously was Chairman and Member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. He also has served as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, a partner at two major law firms, and an adjunct professor at two law schools. His career in the field of immigration and refugee law spans 43 years. He has been a member of the Senior Executive Service in Administrations of both parties.
4
****************************
Tragically, as a nation, we have learned nothing over the past more than three years. Things have actually gotten much, much worse as we have unwisely and unconscionably entrusted the administration of our laws to a cruel, corrupt, scofflaw regime that sees inflicting pain, suffering, and even death on children and other vulnerable seekers of justice as an “end in an of itself.” They actually brag about their dishonesty, racism, selfishness, contempt for human decency, and “crimes against humanity.”
So far, they have gotten away nearly “Scot-free” with not only bullying and picking on vulnerable children and refugee families but with diminishing the humanity of each of us who put up with the horrors of an authoritarian neo-fascist state.
History will, however, remember who stood up for humanity in this dark hour and who instead sided with and enabled the forces of evil, willful ignorance, and darkness overtaking our wounded democracy.
Due Process Forever; Child Abuse & Gratuitous Cruelty, Never.
I did not attend the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, though I have done so in the past. The longtime Washington tradition brings together members of Congress from both political parties along with thousands of faith leaders, and every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has attended. But this is not a time in our nation for habitual or vague prayers for an audience, given the moral and political crisis we now find ourselves in — or one that starts with the president of the United States holding up a newspaper headline saying “Acquitted,” and quickly invoking an impeachment process corrupted by partisan politics.
While I agree that different political philosophies and opinions and honest partisan differences can be overcome by prayer and fellowship between believers, there is much more involved here. Donald Trump began a National Prayer Breakfast by celebrating his personal political success in a shamefully partisan process, underscoring that the moral health of our public life, the very soul of our democracy, and the integrity of faith are at stake.
Fortunately, keynote speaker Arthur Brooks spoke about Jesus’ command to love our enemies and attacked the “contempt” for each other that now defines our culture and politics. But the president’s speech that followed kicked off with him saying, “I don’t know if I agree with Arthur,” revealing his contempt for those who disagree with him and again demonstrating the arrogance, lies, corruption, and contempt that has taken over our public life. At the National Prayer Breakfast, Donald Trump extolled his own self-defined accomplishments — then he asked attendees to vote for him. Prayer, confession, love for our neighbors and enemies, and humility before God were entirely absent. Toward the end of his speech, Trump, off script, briefly admitted he still has a lot to learn. Thank God.
In one of the bright moments of the morning, Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) gave the closing benediction (by video since his cancer prevented his presence). He quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “I have decided to stick with love, for hate is too heavy a burden to bear.” This icon of the civil rights movement spoke of how he was beaten almost to death on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., on Bloody Sunday, and then said, “But I never hated the people who beat me because I chose the way of peace, the way of love, and the way of nonviolence. For the God Almighty helped me.”
Lewis ended with an admonition to all the attendees — and to the nation — to “go in peace, go in love, and we commit to treating each other as we would treat ourselves. Amen.”
So, I was glad that I stayed home from the prayer breakfast — to pray on my own. Here is my prayer.
Dear Lord,
First, I ask you, Lord, for the courage that comes from faith — courage to stand up to the intensity of constant political corruption, the growing divisiveness in our culture, the spreading of fear, the downward spiral of hatred, and the ugly spirit of anger and even violence that is now shaping our politics.
I ask you, Lord, to defend the truth over the perpetual lies in Washington, D.C. And I pray that you heal the politics of grievance and blame and racial hostility that make people want to believe the lies. May we come to know what Jesus taught us: “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” And may we come to understand that losing the truth will mean losing our freedom, that the opposite of the truth that sets us free are the lies that lead us to bondage — from presidential lies to political party lies to social media lies.
I ask you, Lord, to remind all of us who say we are your followers of your two great commandments:
To love God with our whole hearts, minds, and souls, with our whole selves — which must set us free from our nationalist idolatry of putting America first, and of white supremacy, militarism, and materialism, the three giant triplets of evil that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King prophetically called out.
To love our neighbor as ourselves, to treat others as we want to be treated, to love those who are different from us, as Jesus instructed us to do when asked, “Who is my neighbor?” This must set us free from ignoring or even targeting our neighbors who are not like us. And, yes, to extend that neighbor love even to our enemies.
May we reread and obey Jesus’ clear teachings that the “least of these” are the most important — the opposite of what we see in Washington, D.C. May we each ask you, Lord, what we must all do now if what Matthew’s Gospel says is true — that how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger (the immigrant and refugee), the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself.
Teach us to say to all our fellow citizens increasingly ruled by fear what Jesus says to us, “Be not afraid.” Free us Lord from what Timothy’s epistle calls the “spirit of fear,” which is now a campaign strategy in American politics.
Remind us, Oh Lord, of what you taught us about leadership — defined by service, not by dominance. Teach us what is means for us to be servant leaders and to look for that in our elected leaders.
In a culture increasingly ruled by conflict and polarization, teach us what it would mean and cost for us to follow Jesus who says, “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” Lord, help us to find the strength to be those children of God who show love and not contempt for our enemies and seek to resolve our deepening conflicts.
In particular, on this day, in this week of political tumult, I give thanks for the human examples of courage based on faith.
I give thanks for Sen. Mitt Romney who became the first senator ever to vote to impeach a president from his own party saying, “I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.” And I am grateful for the long poignant pause, taken in the Senate chamber, when this senator emotionally talked about his faith.
I also give thanks for Alabama Sen. Doug Jones for risking his political career, which we seldom see in either political party, by voting for what he believed was “right over wrong.”
I pray for those presidential candidates of the opposition Democratic Party to live by their own faith and values and to not mimic the spirit and tactics of the president they oppose.
And, as we are biblically instructed, I pray for all our leaders, including our President Donald Trump, that he might learn the ways of Jesus, experience the continual conversion to Christ that changes all of us, and find the forgiveness and humility that we all need in the presence of God.
I pray for both parties to not be selective over who is entitled to life and dignity. Our theology of who bears the image of God must be consistent.
I pray for Christian believers to not put their political divisions first, but enter into a new conversation about Jesus — what he said, what he meant, and what that means now in our public life. Let us enter into those honest and vital conversations about who Jesus is and who he wants us to be, especially between our black, brown, and white churches.
I pray that citizens of different political persuasions refrain from attacking each other’s character, but rather try to understand each other’s deep concerns and hopes for their futures. In particular, help us to talk together about our hopes and fears for our children’s lives and learn that we want the same things for our kids’ futures.
I pray that religious believers in the United States put their faith over their politics, that citizens put their country over their political party, and that nobody in our country be exempt from the rule of law and the principles of our constitutional democracy.
In the midst of what is now a political, constitutional, moral, and spiritual crisis, with no certainty of how it will be resolved, we all pray, “Lord have mercy.”
Oh Lord, replace our feelings of helplessness and hopelessness with a commitment to courageous action and the hope that we believe can only come from you.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration, which often boasts about defending religious liberty, has violated the religious rights of a group of volunteers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Trump administration has spent years cracking down on the work of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a Unitarian Universalist ministry in Arizona that provides water and food to migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the border where dozens have died. Various members of No More Deaths have faced fines and even jail for what they consider to be faith-based, life-saving humanitarian aid.
But for the second time in months, a judge has ruled that the government shouldn’t be punishing these volunteers for putting their faith into practice.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled Monday that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” As a result, the government substantially burdened the volunteers’ religious liberty by prosecuting them for this work, Marquez said.
“Given Defendants’ professed beliefs, the concentration of human remains on the [refuge], and the risk of death in that area, it follows that providing aid on the [refuge] was necessary for Defendants to meaningfully exercise their beliefs,” the judge wrote.
Márquez’s ruling reversed the decision of a lower court, where another judge dismissed the volunteers’ religious liberty claims and sentenced them to probation and fines last March.
COURTESY NO MORE DEATHS
A federal judge has ruled that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” From left, they are Natalie Hoffman, Madeline Huse, Zaachila Orozco-McCormick, and Oona Holcomb.
The case against the four volunteers ― Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick ― goes back to December 2017, a year when 32 sets of human remains were recovered from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The volunteers were charged with misdemeanors for entering the wildlife refuge without proper permits and leaving behind jugs of water and cans of beans, which the government called abandonment of property.
The volunteers’ defense hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The law states that if a defendant can prove that the government is substantially burdening her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” then the government has to show that it’s using the “least restrictive” path to achieving its goals.
This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe.Parker Deighan, spokesperson for No More Deaths
RFRA initially had broad bipartisan support. But more recently, the religious right has been using RFRA as a way to secure exemptions for conservative beliefs about abortion and LGBTQ rights. The evangelical Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores famously used RFRA to avoid paying for insurance coverage for contraception.
Under Trump, the Department of Justice has urged a narrow reading of RFRA claims made by people of faith who do not share the administration’s policy goals, according to Katherine Franke, faculty director of Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
“The Trump Department of Justice has taken a biased approach to defending and enforcing religious liberty rights under RFRA, robustly protecting the rights of conservative Evangelical Christians while prosecuting people whose faith moves them to oppose the government’s policies,” Franke told HuffPost in an email.
Michael Bailey, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Arizona, said his team has no issue with Márquez’s finding that strong religious beliefs motivated the defendants’ acts.
“We highly value religious freedom without regard to where on the spectrum one’s beliefs might fall,” Bailey told HuffPost in a statement.
JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES
A volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths delivers water along a trail used by undocumented immigrants in the desert on May 10, 2019 near Ajo, Arizona.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
No More Deaths is a Unitarian Universalist ministry. But all four volunteers are technically religiously unaffiliated, which means they are part of a growing group of Americans who decline to identify with any specific religious tradition.
During testimonies, the four described feeling a spiritual calling to volunteer, inspired by beliefs about the sanctity of human life. They also spoke about taking moments of silence in the refuge to reflect on the suffering of those crossing the desert.
Holcomb said that she had constructed a “personal altar” at her home that included a ring of water bottles she picked up in the desert.
“There is … for me, I will say, like a deep spiritual need and a calling to do work based on what I believe in the world,” Holcomb testified, according to the judge’s opinion.
In its response to the volunteers’ appeal, the government argued that their beliefs were not truly religious because they didn’t explain how they fit into a “particular system of religious or spiritual beliefs.” The government also asserted that the volunteers were “draping religious garb” over “secular philosophical concerns.”
In her opinion, Márquez said that the volunteers’ RFRA claims can’t be dismissed just because they described their beliefs in broad terms and don’t belong to an established religion. She pointed out that religious and political motivations overlapped in the Hobby Lobby case. ThatSupreme Court verdict has shown that government faces an “exceptionally demanding” obligation to be minimally restrictive while imposing on a person’s religious exercise, Márquez said.
Ultimately, the government had failed to demonstrate that prosecuting the volunteers was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest, the judge said.
JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES
Scott Warren, a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths, walks into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to deliver food and water along remote desert trails used by undocumented immigrants on May 10, 2019, near Ajo, Arizona.
Márquez’s decision comes months after another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, was acquitted of a federal misdemeanor charge for leaving water jugs in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge for migrants. The judge in that case also acknowledged that Warren’s action was protected by his right to religious freedom. That was one of the first times progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected in this way, the Law, Rights, and Religion Project told HuffPost in November.
Franke said there are other cases where progressive people of faith are making religious exemption claims. The Rev. Kaji Douša, a New York pastor and immigrant rights activist, claims the federal government violated her religious freedom when she was detained and placed on a watch list for ministering to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The government has “trivialized” Douša’s RFRA claims and urged the court to dismiss them, Franke said.
In Philadelphia, the DOJ is trying to prevent a faith-based overdose prevention organization from opening a safe injection site, arguing that its “true motivation is socio-political or philosophical — not religious — and thus not protected by RFRA.”
Franke said that when Congress passed RFRA in 1993, the statute was meant to protect the religious liberty of people across a wide spectrum of beliefs, “not just some, and certainly not only those who hold religious beliefs that were shared with the current federal administration.”
Parker Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, told HuffPost that Márquez’s ruling on Monday reaffirms that “providing humanitarian aid is never a crime.”
“This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe,” she said. “We hope that that Judge Marquez’s ruling signifies a shift towards religious freedom exemptions being used to protect the work of people and organizations fighting on the side of justice, such as migrant solidarity organizations and indigenous peoples fighting for protection of their sacred lands and traditions, rather than protection for discrimination and bigotry.”
******************************
So, here’s the deal.
The Trump (the least religious and most immoral President in U.S. History) regime uses a bogus “religious protection” rationale to cloak far-right programs of hate, intolerance, dehumanization, marginalization, and cruelty directed at people of color, the LGBTQ community, migrants, refugees, women, children, Muslims, Jews, and other vulnerable groups. According to the regime, “religious freedom” is limited to the “extremist religious right.”
Then, the regime attempts to misuse “the law” to punish those who actually “show Christ-like love in word and in deed.” To her credit, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez “just said no” to this disingenuous nonsense.
The only way to stop the intellectual dishonesty, mockery of religious humanitarian principles, and misuse of our laws is to oust Trump and his enablers from office at every level. Otherwise, we can expect the persecution and cruelty to continue.
And don’t be surprised if the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes find a way to manipulate the system to enable the persecution of others to continue and grow worse. It’s what complicit “judges” do in the face of tyrants.
While the regime is using your tax dollars to pervert the law to persecute humanitarian workers, they are simultaneously violating our Constitution, our statutes, and our international obligations, with the connivence of the Supremes and Federal Appeals Courts who choose to look the other way rather than standing up for individuals’ rights against authoritarian overreach.
It’s time to stand up for our Constitutional rights, human rights, and human decency. Throw the corrupt and immoral GOP and their collaborators out of office at the next election, and bring in Government officials, legislators, and life-tenured judges who are willing and able to stand up for their oaths of office!
In the present climate, immigration lawyers must continue to present judges with creative, intelligent arguments; to present the public with proof of what is wrong with the current system; and to present those in power to change what is wrong with solutions.
I’ve added posts that address each these points. First, I discuss some recent articles in which scholars raise creative legal arguments as to the limits of Chevron deference in appeals to the federal courts. I have also posted a statement of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration and Citizenship subcommittee that was made part of the record of its hearing last Wednesday on solutions to the present crisis in the immigration courts.
I have also posted the group statement of our Round Table on the one-year anniversary of the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy that was drafted by former Immigration Judge Ilyce Shugall, who has volunteered her time to travel to Texas to observe MPP hearings that is meant to raise awareness of the need to end this awful program.
The powers of the Attorney General and the Board of Immigration Appeals to influence law by issuing binding precedent decisions is greatly enhanced by what is known as Chevron deference. The principl
On Wednesday, January 29 at 9:30 am, the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is comprised of former immigration judges who are dedicated to due process in the immigration system. As former immigration judges, we
As we see the results of the regime’s Article III-enabled and encouraged nativist, racist policies like an expanded “Travel Ban” that now includes a large portion of Africa, new non-legislative restrictions on legal immigration, unmitigated expansion of the deadly “New American Gulag,” intentional mistreatment of children, and the continuing abrogation of both Due Process and our binding obligations to protect refugees at our Southern Border and elsewhere, Tess’s last sentence is particularly prophetic:
As the Attorney General and other executive officials attempt to expand their authority to define the terms of immigration adjudication, federal courts should heed the Seventh Circuit’s decision – and remember the foundational legal principle that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
So far, the Supremes and the Circuits have largely “vacated the province and shirked their duties” to the nation and our laws by shrinking and cowering in the face of the regime’s continuing lawlessness, bullying, bias, and tyranny. Indeed, the Supremes have shown a disturbing favoritism to unjustified requests by Trump’s Solicitor General to short-circuit the litigation system and the rules that bind all others.
Not since the Eisenhower Administration’s “Operation Wetback” (obviously one of the regime’s “models” of lawless disregard for human and legal rights, not to mention basic morality) has our national Government shown such overt racism and contempt for migrants of color. Yet, rather than standing tall and delivering a united, powerful, intellectually courageous defense of our Constitution, the “GOP Gang of Five Supremes” backed the dehumanization and demonization of migrants on racial and religious grounds for transparent and invidious political reasons in the “Travel Ban case.” They basically invited and then approved a demonstrably false and “bad faith” national defense “pretext” which the Administration has “jumped on” to justify other attacks on the rule of law.
Now the “ban” has remarkably, but predictably, been extended to a large part of Africa, including its largest economy, Nigeria. Hardly a whimper as Trump disembowels both Constitutional norms and human decency. What’s next on the agenda, Supremes, a bogus Executive ban on all non-White, non-Christian immigration? Who’d be surprised at this point?
Of course, with “constitutional de-personification” well under way with Article III approval, the next targets will be US citizens of color and others who “dare to differ” like the LGBTQ community, women, political opponents, journalists, lawyers, and, finally, judges themselves once their usefulness to Trump and his authoritarian regime is exhausted. The all-powerful, unrestrained, “unitary Executive” has no need of legislature, judiciary, or the people except to “ratify” their authoritarian abuses.
The failure to defend and reinforce the courageous legal community challenging the regime’s authoritarian overreach and the pathetically weak defense of the integrity of judicial colleagues who have tried to hold the regime accountable by Roberts has done nothingbut confirm and reinforce Trump’s pre-existingbelief that courts are “his” tools and judges “his toadies.”
America deserves better from its life-tenured judiciary! What’s the purpose of a supposedly independent life-tenured judiciary that sides with powerful, dishonest, lawless, bullies over the rights of individuals and is unwilling to stand up for the rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
The Trump administration has named a hardline former leader of an anti-immigration group to help set up a new role created by Congress to oversee complaints of civil rights violations in detention centers and help those affected by misconduct, according to an internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman was created in the most recent appropriations bill to “address issues that arise in DHS detention facilities” and remain independent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or US Customs and Border Protection. The office will report directly to the secretary of Homeland Security.
Ken Cuccinelli, the controversial second-in-command at the Department of Homeland Security, appointed Julie Kirchner, former leader of FAIR, a group that advocated for policies that restrict immigration, to help set up the office, according to the memo. Cuccinelli also tapped Tracy Short — a former top ICE official who signed memos during the Trump administration to stop the agency from granting reprieves for certain immigrants facing deportation — to also help figure out the plans for the office.
“To spearhead this effort, I have asked Julie Kirchner, outgoing Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and Tracy Short, Senior Advisor at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to work with senior leadership and staff within the Department to lay the proper foundation for the [office],” according to the memo, which was dated Jan. 28.
Congress provided $10 million for the office to address issues of misconduct by DHS officials in detention centers, establish a process to oversee complaints made against immigration officials, inspect facilities, provide recommendations for improvement, and potentially help those whose rights have been violated while in custody.
“In the immediate days and weeks Julie and Tracy will be contacting a variety of individuals across the Department to solicit their input and request information regarding the formation of this new office,” Cuccinelli wrote.
Kirchner was initially picked as the ombudsman at USCIS in 2017, before her departure in the role was announced late last year.
When her appointment was originally announced in 2017, advocacy groups were outraged, due to her background at FAIR, which the Southern Poverty Law Center had labeled a hate group and “America’s most influential anti-immigrant organization.”
“Kirchner’s new position is a very powerful one, which it makes it all the more disturbing considering her past work,” the SPLC said at the time.
The move to appoint Kirchner and Short to help “lay the proper foundation” for the office will likely spur criticism from Congressional officials.
“That’s like letting the fox watch the hens,” said one congressional staffer in a message to BuzzFeed News.
John Sandweg, former acting head of ICE during the Obama administration, said the move was not surprising, but potentially indicative of how the administration sees the role.
“These are the architects of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies,” he said. “It’s not a surprise they would try to build this thing in a way that makes it as less impactful as possible and seems inconsistent with the intent of Congress when they created the office. We have to wait to see what the end product is.”
DHS did not immediately comment.
ICE has expanded the number of people it detains to record levels under President Trump. As of late January, the agency was detaining nearly 41,000 immigrants. The peak came last summer, when around 55,000 immigrants were in custody in local jails and private prisons across the country.
In December, the House Oversight and Reform Committee announced it had opened an investigation into the medical care of immigrant detainees in the wake of a BuzzFeed News story that revealed a series of allegations of substandard care from a whistleblower.
******************
Totally corrupt!
“Wait and see what the end product is?” John Sandweg, are you really so naive that you think Kirchner will do her job and help detainees to be treated like humans? Come on, man! No way! We already know what’s going too happen. And, it will be the exact opposite of what Congress intended in enacting this legislation. But, it’s not like Congress, or the courts for that matter, hold this regime accountable for scofflaw conduct.
She’s there to insure that cruel and inhuman treatment are the norms, there is no accountability, and that the legion of DHS detention abuses (the “core concept” of the “New American Gulag”) are covered up. In other words, to insure maximum dehumanization, a key part of the regime’s nativist agenda. What in Julie Kirchner’s anti-immigrant zealotry, or Tracy Short’s for that matter, would make you think that there is any “ambiguity” on how this will play out?
Keep those court cases rolling! Notwithstanding their tendency toward complicity, eventually, at least some Federal Judges hopefully can be “shamed” into enforcing laws protecting migrants, recognizing human rights, and requiring human dignity in DHS’s treatment of detainees (most of whom don’t belong in “uncivil” detention in the first place).
It’s hard to keep up with President Donald Trump’s scandals. One day he’s covering up taxpayer-funded travel expenses for his family. The next, he’s stealing money for his border wall. The next, he’s being implicated by an accomplice in the extortion of Ukraine. But one horror is right out in the open: Trump is a remorseless advocate of crimes against humanity. His latest threats against Iran, Iraq, and Syria are a reminder that he’s as ruthless as any foreign dictator. He’s just more constrained.
In Africa and the Middle East, Trump proudly advocates plunder. In October, he said the United States should have taken Iraq’s oil to make sure we were “paid back” for the costs of our occupation of that country. In Syria, he stationed U.S. forces at oil fields, explaining that he viewed those fields as a revenue stream. (“$45 million a month? Keep the oil.”) He proposed a business arrangement to exploit Syria’s oil: “What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly.” Last Friday, in a Fox News interview, the president repeated that he cared only about the oil. “I left troops to take the oil,” he told Laura Ingraham. “The only troops I have are taking the oil.”
Two weeks ago, the United States killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike.
To deter retaliation, Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s cultural sites—an explicitwar crime. “If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets,” he tweeted, “we have targeted 52 Iranian sites … some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.” In an exchange with reporters, Trump dismissed legal objections to his threat. “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people,” he fumed. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
Iraq’s Parliament, furious that Trump had killed Soleimani on its soil and without its consent, voted to expel American troops. But Trump refused to comply unless Iraq paid ransom. “We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there,” he told reporters. “We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.” He threatened to “charge them [the Iraqis] sanctions like they’ve never seen before.” Later, Trump told Ingraham that Iraq would also “have to pay us for embassies.” When she asked him how he planned to extract the payment, Trump replied, “We have $35 billion of their money right now sitting in an account. And I think they’ll agree to pay. … Otherwise, we’ll stay there.”
Trump views the military as a mercenary force he can send around the world for hire. A Very Stable Genius, the new book by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, describes a White House meeting at which Trump said American troop deployments should yield a profit. Trump told Ingraham he’s doing exactly that: “We’re sending more [troops] to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia’s paying us for it.” He recounted his business pitch to the Saudis: “You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us.” And he proudly reported that the Saudis had accepted the deal. “They’re paying us,” he told Ingraham. “They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”
Trump’s amorality—his complete indifference to rules against theft, abuse, exploitation, and killing—is a public relations problem for his apologists. They struggle to cover it up. First they softened his Muslim ban to a “travel ban” on certain majority-Muslim countries. Then they concocted non-sadistic rationales for his family-separation policy. Last week, after Trump threatened Iran’s cultural sites, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured the public that Trump would obey the law. Pompeo also whitewashed Trump’s threats against Iraq, insisting that American troops were in that country to protect its “sovereignty.” Mark Esper, the secretary of defense, claimed that when Trump spoke of Saudi Arabia paying for U.S. troop deployments, “What the president is referring to is burden sharing.”
But Trump refuses to be silenced. Hours after Pompeo promised that the president wouldn’t target Iran’s cultural sites, Trump repeated that he would. Later, Trump stiff-armed Ingraham’s attempts to clean up his language about stealing Syrian oil. “I left troops to take the oil,” he told her. She tried to correct him: “We’re not taking the oil. They’re protecting the facilities.” Trump shrugged off this reformulation. “Well, maybe we will, maybe we won’t,” he said. “Maybe we should take it. But we have the oil.”
Having an evil president doesn’t make the United States evil. We have a lot to be proud of: a culture of freedom, a strong constitution, vigorous courts, democratic accountability, and laws that protect minorities and human rights. On balance, we’ve been a force for good in the world. But Trump’s election and his persistent approval from more than 40 percent of Americans are a reminder that nothing in our national character protects us from becoming a rapacious, authoritarian country. What protects us are institutions that stop us from doing our worst.
Thanks to Magda Werkmeister and Daijing Xu for research assistance.
*********************************************
I’d argue that far from being a strong bulwark against Trump’s authoritarian tyranny, our democratic institutions – Congress, Article III Courts, the bureaucracy, and even much of the media — are in a state of constant meltdown under his regime’s relentless attacks. We can see that graphically played out every day in the GOP’s largely fact free and totally dishonest defense of Trump’s running roughshod over both the Congress and our Constitution.
I can’t detect a sliver of desire on the part of the GOP and its enablers to hold Trump accountable for any misdeed — even soliciting foreign interference in our electoral process and then lying to cover it up. The facts really aren’t in dispute here. Whether the U.S. could survive another four years of Trump and remain a democratic republic is still, unfortunately, an open question.
We can hope for the best. But, without “regime change” in November 2020, the worst might still be ahead.
In the meantime, the Article III Courts should do their constitutional duty and stop “coddling” the regime’s various schemes and gimmicks to commit, encourage, and enable “crimes against humanity.” We certainly aren’t going to get any accountability or restraint on Trump’s misconduct and open contempt for American institutions from a Congress where the Senate is led by “Moscow Mitch” and his enablers.
The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, is categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
BY SEBASTIAN MURDOCK
SENIOR REPORTER
HIUFFPOST
The New York Times published an op-ed decrying immigration by an author claiming to be a “liberal restrictionist” who is in fact attached to a known hate group.
The column, published Friday, was written by , “a senior research fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies,” according to the biography listed under his byline.
CIS, which calls itself “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization,” is a known hate group that has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigrant movement that hires racist writers and associates with white nationalists.
“I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted,” Kammer’s headline reads. The piece begins with an anecdote about how immigrants take the jobs of American-born workers and later claims “many liberal Democrats” want illegal immigration to run rampant:
Now many liberal Democrats, including those who call for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seek to erase the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Under the banner of inclusiveness, equality, human rights, racial reconciliation and reparations for American interventions in the third world, those liberals demand sanctuary for those who make it past the Border Patrol or overstay a visa. Few speak openly of open borders, but that is essentially what they are calling for.
Throughout the piece, Kammer seems set on reminding readers that he is liberal, even if his views might suggest otherwise.
“That’s why I call myself a liberal restrictionist,” Kammer, a former journalist, writes. “I have long considered myself a moderate liberal, in part because Democrats have always been the allies of working people.”
White House adviser Stephen Miller, a white nationalist, has cited CIS when speaking about immigration, and in 2011, the group released a report attempting to connect immigration with the creation of future terrorists, calling them “terror babies.”
The organization has gained credibility by writing pseudo-science “research” papers that are little more than racist ideology dressed up in scholarly language. According to the SPLC, “longtime CIS executive director Mark Krikorian’s contributions to the immigration policy debate rarely rise above petulant commentary dashed with extremist statements.”
Running a column by an author employed by a known hate group is the latest in the Times’s run of publishing racist pieces in its opinion section. In December, columnist and known bedbug Bret Stephens cited a study by a white nationalist that falsely claimed Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ than other races. The study he cited “traffics in centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes,” according to the SPLC.
The New York Times opinion section under editor James Bennet ostensibly aims to challenge the paper’s predominately liberal readers by presenting them with thoughtful critiques of their worldview. In practice, it runs pieces like this recent argument that launching a war against Iran would end attacks against American interests in the Middle East—which was written by a veteran of the Bush administration who had predicted confidently in a 2003 piece also published by the Times that launching a war against Iraq would end attacks against American interests in the Middle East. There was no acknowledgment in the new piece of the old one, as an opinion section committed to intellectual honesty might require, nor was it particularly challenging in the sense of being difficult to rebut. But it did make people on the left feel bad, and like they were losing their minds, which is the bar that Bennet’s section requires an argument to clear.
The essay “I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted,” published in the Times Thursday, may represent the nadir of this approach. It makes a familiar argument: that “the left” believes in a “post-national” system of open borders which sacrifices the interests of native-born working Americans to the interests of low-skilled foreign immigrants who drive down wages and disrupt the cultural cohesiveness of their communities. It argues for respecting a distinction between legal and illegal immigration and asserts that Donald Trump’s position on immigration can be appreciated, in a non-racist way, as “a patriotic battle to defend common people.” It accuses Trump’s critics of having had their minds addled by “tribal passions” and a fetish for conflict “between ethnic groups,” and it proposes a “conciliatory” policy that would offer amnesty to existing undocumented workers but institute a crackdown regime of visa enforcement that would prevent future undocumented individuals from finding jobs.
The familiarity of the article’s arguments is matched by the familiarity of its flaws. While large-scale immigration is, in fact, believed by some non-racists to flatten wages at the bottom of the pay scale, it’s also known to accelerate rather than retard economic expansion overall, and tends to be supported by progressives who advocate for other means of increasing working-class wages and sharing the benefits of GDP growth. The distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration is not some ancient, race-agnostic pillar of global affairs, but rather a concept that was instituted in the United States in the early 20th century to explicitly discriminate against Asian, southern European, and eastern European individuals and expanded in the 1960s to explicitly discriminate against Mexicans. Trump’s support is strongest in areas where there are fewer undocumented immigrants, not more, and he lost four of the five states that have the highest undocumented populations per capita. Many of the most immigration-heavy and ethnically diverse cities in the U.S. are also the safest and wealthiest and are considered so desirable to live in by migrating native-born Americans that they are experiencing housing crises.
As to whether criticizing an administration that instituted the premeditated, systematic separation of young children from their parents after they applied legally for asylum is a matter of unseemly “tribal passions,” or whether support for the principles of inclusive American citizenship described on the Statue of Liberty constitutes “post-national” anti-patriotism, perhaps we can agree to disagree.
More concerning than any of these specific problems, though, is the piece’s provenance: It’s written by someone named Jerry Kammer, a fellow at a think tank called the Center for Immigration Studies. Kammer has made a career out of covering immigration policy, he writes, for two reasons: “I was fascinated by its human, political and moral complexity. I also wanted to push back against the campaign by activist groups to label restrictionism as inherently racist.” He expresses regret that “odious people” with white-power affiliations have given the cause of cutting back on immigration a “bad name.”
What neither Kammer nor the Times discloses is that the Center for Immigration Studies was in fact founded by these people, most prominent among them a white nationalist named John Tanton who died last year. Tanton, as the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, believed that the United States needed to maintain a “European-American majority, and a clear one at that”; he founded CIS, he wrote in the 1980s, in order to give his ideas the appearance of independent “credibility.”
Kammer does write that he disagrees with “some of the center’s hard-line positions.” Among his more hard-line colleagues at CIS are a writer named Jason Richwine, who contributed to a journal founded by white supremacist Richard Spencer and who has said that “IQ” is the “most important” difference between racial groups. (As the SPLC has documented, CIS has circulated literally hundreds of articles by explicit white supremacists like Spencer via links in its weekly newsletter. Its director once accused Barack Obama of trying to “foment race war.”) A statement of purpose on the CIS website is credited to longtime Tanton collaborator Dan Stein, who once complained that mass immigration was a tool developed by “Ted Kennedy and his political allies” in approximately 1958 to “retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance.”
In 1997, the Wall Street Journal wrote about Tanton in a piece called “The Intellectual Roots of Nativism.” It was a scathing article which noted that Tanton had once described the immigrant’s contribution to society as “defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs.” The piece expressed concern that “otherwise sober-minded conservatives” and “reasonable critics of immigration” were affiliating themselves with his ideas. The author of that WSJ article, a 28-year-old journalist named Tucker Carlson, has since made the career-advancing decision to embrace Tanton-style nativism; he was in the news not too long ago for complaining in his role as a Fox News host that immigrants make the United States physically “dirtier.”
Whatever space ever existed between mainstream conservatism and white-power nationalism, Carlson demonstrates, has collapsed. And it turns out that the “odious people” that Kammer references in the Times are actually his colleagues and forebears, who created his organization so that policies intended to perpetuate “European-American” and “Anglo-Saxon” superiority could be laundered into the respectable discourse. What else is there to say but: It worked!
**************************
So, we have a White Nationalist in the White House assisted by neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Miller actually turning nativism into “Government policy.” Other white supremacists are scattered in key positions throughout the Government, particularly the immigration bureaucracy. Trump tweets and right-wing media put out a constant barrage of nativist lies, misrepresentations, false narratives, and racial, ethnic, and religious slurs.
So, just why is it that the “mainstream media” owes White Nationalists yet another forum to spread their nativist propaganda?
It’s not limited, of course, to just the Times. The WashPost regularly publishes largely fact and value free right-wing blather from professional shills like Marc Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt under the guise of “op-eds.”
And Chuck Todd regularly invites GOP congenital liars and Trump toadies like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to spread their lies, false narratives, and debunked “conspiracy theories” from the “bully pulpit” of “Meet the Press.” To top it off, Chuck then appears to be flabbergasted that when he confronts these guys with truth and facts, they “double down” continuing to lie to his face, ignore established facts, and spread Putinesque conspiracy theories.
Fact is, most of the Trump agenda is corrupt, counterfactual, unethical, inhumane, divisive, and corrosive to American democracy. We receive enough of it from lots of sources every day, pretty much 24-7-365. Is it really necessary for those supposedly dedicated to truth and democracy to give more free “air time” to nativist shills spreading their racially corrosive, divisive, anti-democracy propaganda?
