"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Groundbreaking Path2Papers Initiative Receives $1.5 Million Grant
Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer (left) and Steve Yale-Loehr are two of the leaders of the new Path2Papers initiative.
By Chris Brouwer
April 22, 2024
JNews
Groundbreaking Path2Papers Initiative Receives $1.5 Million Grant
By Chris Brouwer
April 22, 2024
Professors Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Stephen Yale-Loehr have secured a $1.5 million grant from Crankstart for their groundbreaking initiative, the Path2Papers project. Housed at Cornell Law School, this new nonprofit venture helps DACA recipients in the San Francisco Bay Area pursue work visas and other pathways to legal permanent residency. Cornell DACA recipients can also receive consults through this project.
Since its inception by the Obama administration in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has allowed an estimated 600,000 undocumented young migrants who arrived in the United States as children to obtain the right to work and temporary protection from deportation. However, with Congress’s failure to find a legislative solution and legal challenges entangling the program in federal courts, uncertainty looms over DACA’s future.
Path2Papers is one of the only programs in the country that combines experience in employer representation with expertise in evaluating employment-based immigration options for DACA recipients. Coordinated by Kelley-Widmer, Yale-Loehr, and several others, including Dan Berger ’96, an immigration lawyer and nonresident academic fellow at the Law School, the project aims to facilitate the transition of up to 40 percent of the approximately 12,000 Bay Area DACA recipients to alternative lawful immigration statuses. By doing so, it seeks to ensure that even if Congress or the courts terminate DACA, many recipients in the Bay Area can continue to reside legally in the United States, unlocking their full potential.
Path2Papers will employ a multifaceted approach to achieve its objectives. This includes providing personalized legal consultations to DACA recipients, training students and professionals in immigration law, hosting legal information sessions, offering referrals to legal service providers and pro bono attorneys, conducting training sessions for attorneys on handling DACA-related issues, and educating employers about visa options for their DACA employees.
Over the two-year grant period, Path2Papers will establish a robust infrastructure to deliver comprehensive legal assistance to Bay Area DACA recipients. During the first stage of this process, Kelley-Widmer is shifting the focus of her longstanding 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic to the Path2Papers project. “I’m excited to have the opportunity to build proactive support for DACA recipients through this cutting-edge model while integrating clinical students into the work,” Kelley-Widmer says. “And already, other organizations around the country have reached out about how to replicate this project in their area.” In addition, the project has hired immigration lawyer Krsna Avila ’17, a former clinic student, as a full-time attorney based in the Bay Area.
“This project teaches valuable legal skills to law students while also addressing a real need for a deserving and underserved population,” says Yale-Loehr. “In that sense it fulfills Cornell Law School’s mission of creating ‘lawyers in the best sense.’”
For more information about Path2Papers, visit path2papers.org.
aclyn Kelley-Widmer (left) and Steve Yale-Loehr are two of the leaders of the new Path2Papers initiative.
Professors Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Stephen Yale-Loehr have secured a $1.5 million grant from Crankstart for their groundbreaking initiative, the Path2Papers project. Housed at Cornell Law School, this new nonprofit venture helps DACA recipients in the San Francisco Bay Area pursue work visas and other pathways to legal permanent residency. Cornell DACA recipients can also receive consults through this project.
Since its inception by the Obama administration in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has allowed an estimated 600,000 undocumented young migrants who arrived in the United States as children to obtain the right to work and temporary protection from deportation. However, with Congress’s failure to find a legislative solution and legal challenges entangling the program in federal courts, uncertainty looms over DACA’s future.
Path2Papers is one of the only programs in the country that combines experience in employer representation with expertise in evaluating employment-based immigration options for DACA recipients. Coordinated by Kelley-Widmer, Yale-Loehr, and several others, including Dan Berger ’96, an immigration lawyer and nonresident academic fellow at the Law School, the project aims to facilitate the transition of up to 40 percent of the approximately 12,000 Bay Area DACA recipients to alternative lawful immigration statuses. By doing so, it seeks to ensure that even if Congress or the courts terminate DACA, many recipients in the Bay Area can continue to reside legally in the United States, unlocking their full potential.
Path2Papers will employ a multifaceted approach to achieve its objectives. This includes providing personalized legal consultations to DACA recipients, training students and professionals in immigration law, hosting legal information sessions, offering referrals to legal service providers and pro bono attorneys, conducting training sessions for attorneys on handling DACA-related issues, and educating employers about visa options for their DACA employees.
Over the two-year grant period, Path2Papers will establish a robust infrastructure to deliver comprehensive legal assistance to Bay Area DACA recipients. During the first stage of this process, Kelley-Widmer is shifting the focus of her longstanding 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic to the Path2Papers project. “I’m excited to have the opportunity to build proactive support for DACA recipients through this cutting-edge model while integrating clinical students into the work,” Kelley-Widmer says. “And already, other organizations around the country have reached out about how to replicate this project in their area.” In addition, the project has hired immigration lawyer Krsna Avila ’17, a former clinic student, as a full-time attorney based in the Bay Area.
“This project teaches valuable legal skills to law students while also addressing a real need for a deserving and underserved population,” says Yale-Loehr. “In that sense it fulfills Cornell Law School’s mission of creating ‘lawyers in the best sense.’”
For more information about Path2Papers, visit path2papers.org.
*******************************
Congrats to all involved at Cornell Law and appreciation to Professor Steve Yale-Loehr for alerting me to this wonderful initiative. This appears to be an approach that could be replicated elsewhere.
1)Hi all: Our Cornell asylum appeals clinic recently won a difficult withholding/CAT case at the BIA.On remand, the IJ granted CAT.And the client won release through habeas.
Pasted in below is a summary of the case.
Kudos go to Eva Charles and Isaac Belenkiy, the two Cornell law students who worked on the case.Even by the high standards of our clinic, they both went above and beyond for the client.And as you will see from the summary, pro bono attorneys from Morrison Foerster and the public defender’s office also worked hard to get our client CAT protection and release from detention.It takes a village to win immigration relief!
The habeas decision is at 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173280.The BIA decision is too big to attach.If anyone wants it, please email me offline.
Thanks, Steve Yale-Loehr
2023 Mexico Withholding and CAT Case Summary [IES]
Stephen Yale-Loehr, Evangeline Charles, Isaac Belenkiy
IES is a 41-year-old man from Mexico who first came to the U.S. when he was 18 years old. As a youth, IES joined a gang. He was arrested in 2005 for possessing a small quantity of drugs and was sentenced to four years in prison for “transporting drugs.” While in prison, IES defected from the gang and, following his release, was removed to Mexico in 2008. There, his tattooed physical appearance caught the attention of gangs and cartels like the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, who attacked him and his family, prompting him to relocate eight times within Mexico. Unable to find safety in Mexico, IES fled back to the United States in 2010.
In 2022, IES was detained by ICE and held at the Golden State Annex (“GSA”), a private for-profit prison, in McFarland, CA. IES applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all forms of relief, finding that IES’s 2005 conviction was a “particularly serious crime” (“PSC”) that rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
At this point, the Cornell asylum appeals clinic took on IES’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Our brief addressed two main issues: 1) IES warranted relief under withholding of removal because his 2005 conviction was not a PSC; and 2) the IJ erred in analyzing IES’s eligibility for CAT relief.
For the PSC argument, we argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’s offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and instead relied on boilerplate sentencing documents. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense.
For the CAT argument, we focused on 6 errors: 1) the IJ failed to consider that IES’s prolonged mental pain would cause future torture; 2) the IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%; 3) the IJ failed to admit 400 pages of country conditions reports into evidence; 4) the IJ mischaracterized IES’s attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation;” 5) the IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’s complaints; and 6) the IJ did not aggregate IES’s risk of torture.
On June 16, 2023, the BIA sustained our appeal in IES’s favor and remanded the case back to the IJ. Notably, the BIA agreed with our PSC argument, the IJ’s failure to consider all evidence, and the IJ’s failure to aggregate IES’s risk of torture.
After this, IES’s case was transferred to a public defender, who represented him on remand. The clinic team worked closely with the public defender’s office to transfer all files and get them up to speed on the case.
Parallel to our BIA filing, we participated in other advocacy efforts. While at GSA, IES participated in a labor strike in 2022 and a hunger strike in 2023. The aims of these protests were to draw attention to the abysmal conditions at private immigration detention facilities like GSA, to call for a minimum wage for detainee labor, and to demand safe and sanitary living conditions for detained migrants. The 2023 hunger strike was a coordinated effort by detainees and activists, supported by lawyers working for immigration justice. This protest resulted in a class action lawsuit on behalf of the detainees and the submission of release requests on behalf of individual detainees.
During the protests at GSA, our team filed a release request for IES. Our request explained that IES should be released because he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to society. ICE denied the request. IES continued to participate in the hunger strike and was mistreated by ICE personnel and medical officers. This prompted our clinic to file complaints to ICE and DHS about this mistreatment, which violated ICE’s own regulations.At the same time, we filed FOIA requests asking for IES’s detention, removal, and medical records. We decided to build a record of release requests to show administrative exhaustion so that IES can get a bond hearing. We also found a law firm (Morrison Foerster) to represent IES pro bono for a habeas corpus petition.
On September 27, 2023, the U.S. district court for the Northern District of California granted IES’s habeas petition on the grounds that “his prolonged detention without an individualized hearing violates his procedural due process rights.” A bond hearing was granted to IES. The government appealed this ruling, but their appeal was dismissed.
In fall 2023, IES was released on bond. A week later, the IJ granted him protection under CAT. IES is now back home with his wife and children. He can now get a work permit and cannot be deported to Mexico.
In the triumph of IES’s journey from detention to liberation, our team found a beacon of hope and resilience. The hunger strikes, the legal battles, and the relentless pursuit of freedom for IES were not in vain. As our clinic celebrates his freedom, we are grateful to our partners—advocacy groups in California and lawyers and public defenders who provided advice and guidance on appeal and zealously advocated for IES on remand—and to IES’s family, who never stopped providing support and information despite their own personal struggles.
The clinic’s fight for immigration justice is far from over, but IES’s triumph serves as inspiration to press onward and advocate for other clients who are plagued by inequities in our immigration system.
2) Asylum granted!
Beginning in spring 2023, a group of thirteen 1L and advanced Immigration Law & Advocacy Clinic students worked tirelessly to file individual asylum applications for a family from Afghanistan. The clients had their interviews in April, and the clinic just received the good news that the requests were approved. Congratulations to the team!
Part of the legal team is pictured here (from left): Katie Rahmlow ’23, client, client, Don Izekor, Esq. ’23, Alisa Whitfield, interpreter Hamid Rezaee (CIS ’26), Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, client, Amy Godshall ’23.
Not pictured: Deborah Morales ’25, Oscar F. Ruiz ’25, Nathaniel Squires ’25, Rodrigo Tojo Garcia ’25, Aaliyah Channer ’25, Yubin “Lucy” Oh ’25, Arina Gorokhovska ’25, Miriam Mars ’24, Tori Staley ’23, Jared Flanery ’23.
*****************************
Congrats to the “next wave” of the relentless NDPA!
These are outstanding examples of why claims that unrepresented individuals receive constitutionally-required due process in Immigration Court are absolute poppycock! They also illustrate why responsible legislators and policy makers should be investing in representation rather than just spending wildly and fruitlessly on “gonzo” immigration enforcement.
No single nation, no matter how rich and powerful, can unilaterally change 21st century worldwide patterns of forced migration, which is what is generating the humanitarian situation at our Southern Border. But, we can more effectively address due process issues in our Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system!
Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo. This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc
Search
ADMISSIONS
ACADEMICS
FACULTY & RESEARCH
CAREERS
LIFE AT CORNELL LAW
Information for: Current Students Alumni
GIVE TODAY
News
1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case
By Law School staff
April 27, 2022
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Email
On March 31, The Cornell Law School’s 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic won a long-fought, difficult case in the Buffalo Immigration Court for a mother and her young children living on a farm in upstate New York, ensuring that the family will be able to live safely in the United States.
The client had arrived in 2019 from Mexico with three children under ten, including a baby. She was fleeing an abusive husband, to whom she had been forcibly married as a teenager, as well as direct threats of gang violence in her home country, whose government offered her no protection.
Immigration authorities detained her for several weeks in the winter of 2019 before releasing her with a notice to appear in court. She went to her first two court dates unrepresented, because few attorneys in upstate New York take this kind of case. Another nonprofit had already declined to represent her when she contacted Cornell Law’s Immigration Clinic.
“Asylum cases are incredibly difficult to win,” says clinic director Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer. “The process is onerous and takes tremendous resources. My students estimate that, across all the law students involved in the case, interpreters we used, law professors who contributed, volunteers who helped care for the client’s children, and administrative staff who assisted with filing and other logistics, this case took us about 1,000 collective hours over 14 months.”
She adds that the clinic was also partially basing its case on a novel argument related to the client’s marriage, which occurred while she was still a child. “The law students came up with this creative solution and found a path forward to make the claim, including by seeking multiple expert witnesses and researching country conditions to contextualize the client’s story.”
The core team of Jared Flanery ’23 and Tori Staley ’23 (who started as 1Ls) and Gaby Pico ’22 and Rachel Skene ’22 (who started as 2Ls) stayed with it for three semesters. They worked closely with the client, completely in Spanish and almost entirely remotely due to the pandemic and the client’s rural location.
The students conducted extensive research, drafted witness declarations, and wrote the briefing, involving three separate legal arguments. They also took on the trial, including direct examination of multiple witnesses, presentation of evidence, and closing arguments.
“Most importantly, the client herself has been her own best advocate,” says Kelley-Widmer. “We’ve laughed with her, we’ve cried with her, and together we celebrated this win for her long-term safety.”
**************************
Folks, these are “first year law students” in the NDPA who, with inspiration and guidance from some of the “best and brightest in American law,” (like Professor Jakki Kelly-Widmer) are running circles around Garland’s “stuck in reverse” DOJ and Mayorkas’s DHS.
One of Jason’s many salient points was that there are lots of potentially “winnable” cases mired in Garland’s backlog that should be granted if they could only get a merits hearing before a fair judge.
As I have said repeatedly, the things necessary to transform EOIR into a “hotbed of due process” rather than it’s current state of “dysfunctional disaster” are NOT rocket 🚀 science:
More and better representation;
Fair, expert judges with practical experience;
Uniform, nationwide guidance on how to properly grant asylum and other relief in many worthy cases from a BIA of true experts and “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights;
Dockets that prioritize, expedite, and reward well-prepared, well-documented, grantable cases for asylum and other relief.
Those are the items that should have been “day one” priorities at DOJ and EOIR for Garland and his team. (Just what, if anything, has he accomplished in his time in office in ANY significant area of the law or policy?)
Instead, Garland has responded with:
Arbitrary and capricious, deterrence-driven “expedited dockets” that lead to more “ADR” and bigger backlogs;
“User unfriendly,” unilateral actions that have cost him support from the pro bono bar and experts would could have helped straighten out EOIR;
Maintaining a judiciary and “management” structure largely “designed and staffed” to “deny and deport” by his overtly nativist predecessors;
Wasting time, resources, and squandering goodwill by defending Title 42 and other indefensible policies left behind by the Trump-Miller regime.
These mistakes are NOT “small potatoes” 🥔 as Garland and some other misguided Dems seem to think. They have cost the Dems “big time” in the one overarching area where they had complete control and could have made necessary progressive changes for the common good without “60 votes” in the Senate. How many immigration bills did the Trump regime pass on their way to obliterating the law and human rights?
They have also cost the Dems a nearly unprecedented chance to show how sound legal and constitutional policies, equal justice, racial equity, and enlightened progressive humanitarianism can work to reaffirm and re-energize the essential contribution of immigration to America’s greatness and to disprove the racist, nativist, false myths about immigrants and people of color that have become a staple of modern day Republicanism.
Enlightened immigration policies could have materially helped solve or prevent some of the economic woes facing American today. They could have “beefed up” everything from the supply chain to essential workers to needed investments in rural America to the housing shortage.
Some of the “reddest” states in American are among those that could benefit most from immigrants — many of whom have faced and overcome in their lives some of the same problems frustrating rural America. But, migrants who are being illegally rejected at the border, unlawfully imprisoned, and/or then orbited to death or oblivion in failed countries can’t help themselves or anyone else. What a waste of human potential and opportunities to show what immigrants can achieve in and for America!
Close immigration courts now: A coronavirus necessity to protect public health
BySTEPHEN YALE-LOEHR andJACLYN KELLEY-WIDMER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
MAR 31, 2020 | 1:36 PM
In this Nov. 15, 2019, file photo, a detainee talks on the phone in his pod at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga. While much of daily life has ground to a halt to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the Trump administration is resisting calls from immigration judges and attorneys to stop in-person hearings and shutter all immigration courts. They say the most pressing hearings can still be done by phone so immigrants aren’t stuck in detention indefinitely.(David Goldman/AP)Imagine you’re an immigration lawyer. You have a case scheduled for trial in immigration court, but you’ve got a cough, a sore throat and shortness of breath. In normal times, you probably would have gone to court for the trial. In current times, you’re worried. We all know what those symptoms mean.
You call your doctor, who tells you that you’re displaying symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The doctor recommends that you self-quarantine.
Your immigrant client is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and counting on you to present their asylum case. You’ve been preparing for months. Your client’s ability to avoid being deported to a country where they face torture or death depends on your performance.
Even though most courts around the country are closed in response to the pandemic, your court date is still on. The Justice Department is keeping its detained immigration courts open, ignoring joint letters from the National Association of Immigration Judges, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the union representing ICE attorneys calling for a shutdown during the pandemic.
As of your trial date, you haven’t been able to meet with your client in person to prepare for at least two weeks. At the time, ICE wouldn’t let you use your regular attorney visit rooms due to disease risk, so you were stuck waiting in line for the one glass-partitioned attorney room at the detention center. You never got to the front of the line for the room, so you were only able to talk to your client through glass and on the telephone.
Then ICE issued a new directive on March 21 requiring all attorneys to bring their own gloves, mask and eye protection for contact visits with clients. Your office doesn’t have any of this gear. Even if you could get protective gear, you wouldn’t take it away from the medical professionals who truly need it.
Despite all of this, you hope the immigration judge will sympathize with your predicament. You file a motion asking for more time to better represent your client after all of this is over. You cite your own illness, your inability to meet with your client to prepare, and local and national public health warnings.
Despite your objections, the immigration judge proceeds with your client’s asylum trial. The judge gives you the choice of abandoning your client to face the fight of his life by himself or proceeding as his attorney via telephone. Reluctantly, you find a folding table to put your file on and try the case from your couch, unable to see or communicate privately with your client. You cannot see anything that is happening in court.
All you know is that the immigration judge, ICE prosecutor and interpreter are there.
. . . .
******************************************
Read the rest of the article at the above link.
And here’s my good friend and former Georgetown Law colleague Leila, now at Tulane Law, with her plea in Slate for some sanity and humanity on unnecessary and demonstrably harmful and dangerous continued incarceration of children in DHS’s “New American Gulag.”
With nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 160,000 infected by COVID-19 in the United States, it’s clear no one will be spared from impacts of the pandemic. In the past week, four children in immigration detention and seven employees of the Office of Refugee Resettlement who work in children’s detention facilities in New Jersey and Texas tested positive for the virus. Doctors working with detained immigrants have warned members of Congress that immigrant detention centers pose a “tinderbox scenario,” where social distancing precautions are impossible.
Two separate lawsuits are asking federal courts to force the release of unaccompanied children as well as families in immigrant detention, citing the grave health risks of contracting the coronavirus and spreading the disease. These risks are particularly serious because of the confluence of factors in family detention centers: crowded quarters, limited cleaning supplies, and the influx of new families into the detention centers. While it is understood children are usually less at risk of serious complications from COVID-19, a handful of children in the U.S. with COVID-19 have died in the past few days, and children may be more likely to more rapidly spread the disease.
Instead of a public health–oriented response to COVID-19 in the immigration legal system, we are seeing political opportunism. The Trump administration is using the virus as an excuse to swiftly deport unaccompanied minors at the border, despite laws that require that children be allowed to have their cases heard first by an immigration judge. Similarly, the Department of Justice is defying public health guidelines by forcing judges, attorneys, and immigrants to appear in select immigration courts across the country, despite positive COVID-19 tests from court personnel and risks inherent to crowded courtrooms, in order to continue deportation proceedings.
This mistreatment of children is not new. Before the outbreak, children were finding themselves in an increasingly punishing immigration legal system—where they had been separated from their parents, detained in record-breaking numbers for longer periods of time, and held in shocking and abusive detention conditions, including “dog cage” holding cells without mattresses, overflowing toilets, and frigid temperatures. Children do not have to be held in these conditions; unaccompanied children can and should be released more expeditiously to live with family in the U.S., and children detained with parents could be released as a family unit to pursue their legal case outside of detention.
Detained children have experienced forced hunger, dehydration, and sleeplessness.Holly Cooper, an attorney representing detained children, stated: “In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention I have never heard of this level of inhumanity.” One 15-year-old boy, detained at the jail-like Shenandoah Valley facility, wrote “I want us to be treated as human beings.”
As a law professor and immigration attorney for more than a decade, I have seen firsthand how the immigration system mistreats children. In a recent law journal article, I argue adultification bias can help explain the mistreatment of immigrant children, who are largely teenagers of color. Adultification is the phenomenon whereby children of color are perceived as more adultlike and therefore less innocent than white peers. Adultification has created systemic harm for children of color within public systems like education, juvenile justice, and child welfare. In particular, the disproportionate rates of arrests, adjudications, and sentencing for children of color within the juvenile justice system has been studied closely.
Immigration laws were not designed to protect children. In fact, only a few areas of the law consider the special circumstances of children. The Flores settlement sets minimum standards for detaining minors, limited to children under 18. Under Flores, children should be released as soon as possible to family, when feasible. Furthermore, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, not U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is tasked with the custody of detained unaccompanied minors. According to legislative history, this is because ORR, under the Department of Health and Human Services, has more expertise in child care. Another child-focused measure is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, or TVPRA, which expands legal protections for children including in the areas of asylum law and special immigrant juvenile status, a pathway to legal permanent residence and citizenship available for some children. Lastly, the government has issued guidelines for children’s cases to improve immigration court procedures.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Leila’s article at the link.
“Adultifiation,”“Adjudication Bias,”“Dred Scottification,”“dehumanization,” it’s all pretty much the same thing. As human beings, we must ask ourselves every day why have we empowered the cowardly bullies of the Trump regime to commit what are essentially “crimes against humanity” against the most vulnerable among us, their courageous representatives (about the only folks in the country brave enough to stand up for all of our Constitutional and human rights), and even their own employees? Compare their brave performance with the complicity of many Federal Judges, all the way up to the Supremes, and many legislators who stand by and watch these preventable and outrageous human and legal disasters occur, yet do nothing to stop them!
Why do we have the best and brightest legal and public health minds in the country pleading with the regime to take straightforward, common sense, prudent steps that even a minimally competent government would have taken long before now? How have we allowed the kakistocracy and the wanton cruelty and “malicious incompetence” they inflict on almost everything they touch become the “face of America?”
Due Process Forever! Vote Like YOUR Life Depends On It This November; Because It Does!
On Wednesday, the Trump administration released a regulation that would allow it to detain migrant children indefinitely. The new rule, which is not yet in effect, would end the 1997 consent decree known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, which put in place protections for migrant children who arrive at the border. The Flores agreement limits how long children can be detained and requires that they be placed in the least restrictive setting possible.
Many Americans first heard about the Flores agreement last summer, when the Trump administration began separating families at the border. The administration claimed that it had to separate children from their guardians because the Flores agreement would not let the government detain the families together long enough to resolve the parents’ immigration cases, which often takes months or years. Previous administrations usually released families until their cases were heard.
1. Long-term detention has lasting mental health effects on children
Acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan said that the rule sets guidelines for the care of detained families in “campus-like settings” where all needs are ostensibly met. These “family residential centers,” he said, will have “appropriate” facilities for “medical, educational, recreational, dining” and housing needs. However, there is good reason to doubt that detention conditions will be adequate, given recent reports of the lack of even basic necessities at some facilities.
Detention is likely to have a lasting detrimental impact on children’s mental health. A 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics report concluded that detained immigrant children experience high levels of mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder during and after detention. Detaining children with their families does not significantly mitigate the severe mental health impact. Any detention is especially traumatic for children; long-term detention only increases the likelihood of lasting effects.
In the week I spent earlier this year in the family detention center in Dilley, Tex., law students and I observed that the environment created continuing trauma for the children and families. One child I met cried silent tears throughout the legal meeting I held with her mother. A detained teenager was entertaining thoughts of suicide and refusing food.
Children are detained more than 20 days when bureaucratic hurdles block their release. For example, in December 2018, the average stay in the children’s detention facility at Tornillo, Tex., was 50 days. Such waits are caused by a Trump-era Department of Homeland Security policy that requires background checks of the relative waiting to take in the child and also of every person in that relative’s home. Cornell Law School faculty members have met children detained in Brownsville, Tex., for up to 10 months.
3. The rule will not deter desperate families
McAleenan claimed that the rule will discourage adults from bringing children to the United States, whether those adults are the children’s parents, other relatives or smugglers. But such deterrence policies rarely work, researchers find. Pushed out of dangerous home countries by poverty, crime or other threats, migrants simply look for other ways into the United States.
For example, the Trump administration’s new Migrant Protection Protocols require migrants who present themselves at an official border point of entry to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing. Knowing this, many detained women I spoke to in Dilley had avoided the point of entry. Instead, they crossed the Rio Grande at night on inflatable rafts, clutching their toddlers. They asked for asylum when Border Patrol apprehended them.
4. The rule faces several potential legal challenges
The administration published the rule in the Federal Register on Friday. It could take effect in 60 days, but only if it’s approved by federal judge Dolly M. Gee, who oversees the Flores agreement. Once the rule is published, the government has seven days to file a brief to obtain her approval. Last year, she denied the government permission to modify Flores to permit indefinite child detention. If she denies this request as well, the government will probably appeal.
Even if Gee grants the government’s request, the rule will probably be delayed by legal challenges from advocacy groups such as the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which originally filed the Flores case and continues to litigate it today. Advocates are likely to argue that the new rule violates Flores, putting the government in contempt of the court’s order.
If the rule does go into effect, advocates will probably bring a new class-action suit under some of the principles of the original 1985 Flores complaint, arguing that indefinite detention is a violation of due process and equal protection under the Constitution. They may also argue that the policy violates certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Further, advocates could turn to international human rights law, arguing that the rule violates the right to personal liberty and security enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Lawyers for detained children may also file individual writs of habeas corpus, a legal term for petitions for release alleging that the detention is an unconstitutional deprivation of freedom. Immigration attorneys have increasingly been filing habeas corpus petitions for immigrants in prolonged detention — at times successfully obtaining their clients’ release.
Beyond legal action, the indefinite child detention policy may again spark public outrage, as happened last summer over family separation. Collective public action could also prompt policy change.
Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer is an assistant clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School, where she teaches lawyering and directs the 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic
*****************************
So, why are guys like Big Mac, “Cooch Cooch,” Barr, and Stephen Miller still on the “public dole” rather than in jail for abusing children, lying about it, and knowingly and intentionally abusing our legal system with frivolous false claims?
These aren’t legitimate legal and policy disputes.They are blatant attempts, fueled by outright lies and racist-inspired knowingly false narratives, calculated to “break” our legal system and improperly punish individuals for exercising their legal rights.
