"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.
“We have not revamped our legal immigration categories, including business immigration, since 1990. Some of those categories are out of alignment with our needs in the United States today,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, who was not involved with the NAE study. “The pandemic has exacerbated those inconsistencies because people who are desperately needed to restart various businesses have been unable to enter the United States,” Yale-Loehr said.”
****************************
We should be expanding legal immigration opportunities in all three categories that currently feed our “green card system:”
Family visas;
Work visas; and
Refugee and asylum admissions.
We have seen during the pandemic that “essential workers” we depend upon and whose presence enriches our society and helps us build for a better future come in all types of statuses, including so-called “undocumented.” Those coming in the family, refugee, and asylum categories contribute valuable job skills, experiences, and enrichment to our society just as much, and in some cases, even more than those whose visas are based on work skills. We need to draw on and expand all three categories.
My Georgetown Law Immigration and Refugee Policy students did their own research and pointed these things out in our class just this week. They “get it!” But, our current Government immigration policy makers, not so much!
Again, to state the obvious, the Biden Administration is “missing the boat” by not restarting our asylum system at the border, running it in an appropriately generous and fair manner with experts, and expanding and getting our refugee programs functioning again. Many of those with skills we need and can use are literally “dying to get in” while we ignore both their humanity and our collective best interests.
Progressive legislative reforms to our legal immigration system are long, long overdue. But, we already have the legal authority to run far more robust and fairer legal refugee and asylum systems that would benefit America and the world, a well as saving lives and ending the ongoing squandering of Government resources on failed, illegal, cruel, and counterproductive “enforcement schemes.”
Progressive experts with the needed skill sets to fix the migration problems are out here. Obviously, Professor Yale-Loehr is just one of many. Yet, for the most part, the Biden Administration ignores their expertise and turns a deaf ear to their solutions. Doesn’t make sense to me!
Unfortunately, we appear to appear to lack the will, imagination, courage, and most of all progressive expertise in the Executive Branch to use currently available tools and legal authorities to fix migration problems.
My students continually give me hope that the next generations will provide enlightened leadership and build a more just society and a better world for the future. But, in the meantime, my generation continues to squander opportunities for improvement. There will be a cost, of that I’m sure!
Is this really the ‘preferred method’ for handling an asylum claim by a female Cuban refugee doctor? Judge Garland seems to think so!” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
In April 2020, COVID-19 reached the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Dr. Merlys Rodriguez Hernandez, who had been detained there for six months, said she knew it would spread quickly.
Rodriguez Hernandez is originally from Cuba, where she and her husband, Lazaro, practiced medicine before they were forced to flee government persecution, she said. When they reached the U.S. border, they applied for asylum. Both were detained, in separate facilities, Merlys said. After eight months, Lazaro was granted protection from having to return to Cuba. Merlys’ petition, based on identical circumstances, was tried in a different immigration court – and denied, she said.
Cornell Law School’s Asylum Clinic took her case, under the direction of Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of immigration law practice, and Ian M. Kysel, visiting assistant clinical professor of law. Law students Conor Bednarski, J.D. ’21, and Michelle Zhu, J.D. ’21, litigated an appeal to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.
Conor Bednarski
Michelle Zhu
Meanwhile, Rodriguez Hernandez was trapped in a detention system raging with COVID-19, she said. She fell ill with the virus in May 2020 and spent 40 days in isolation, suffering from joint pain, body aches and severe diarrhea and confined to a cell she was expected to sanitize herself, she said. Tara Pilato, co-executive director emerita of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights at Weill Cornell Medicine, who consulted on the case, observed that “the conditions Merlys reported were not only inhumane, but against all best practices for caring for patients with COVID-19.”
Kayleigh Yerdon
“Watching this preventable tragedy unfold week after week, as we were told to shelter in place, was the hardest part of working on this case,” Bednarski said.
As the pandemic spread, Bednarski and Zhu tried to secure Rodriguez Hernandez’s release, and then supported a collaboration with pro bono counsel who filed a habeas corpus writ in federal court.
Kayleigh Yerdon, J.D. ’21, took the lead on the case during the fall 2020 term. With Spanish interpretation assistance from Cornell doctor of juridical science student Ana Ruival, LLM ’19, Yerdon won her client’s release on bond. Rodriguez Hernandez was released in October 2020, after 13 months in detention, Yerdon said.
“As a law student, being able to step into court for the first time via teleconference and win, knowing my client would walk free as a result, was just an incredible experience,” Yerdon said. She also took on Lazaro’s case, successfully litigating a motion to reopen his case, and eventually securing him asylum, she said. Yerdon was recently honored with the Law School’s Freeman Award for Civil-Human Rights, in part in recognition for her clinical work.
Meryls’ case shows that some of the most harmful flaws in the immigration system can be addressed by applying basic rights principles, Kysel said.
Rodriguez Hernandez and her husband are now living in Kentucky as they work to appeal the denial of her request for asylum. She said she hopes to become an advocate for immigrants who remain detained during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the legal team has continued its efforts to engage in other advocacy and to amplify the impact of their legal work on the doctor’s case, Kysel and Yale-Loehr said.
Recently, Rodriguez Hernandez told her story in a first-person essay in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the support of her Cornell Law clinic team and a team from the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights, led by Pilato and Dr. Gunisha Kaur, assistant professor of anesthesiology.
“As one of our colleagues in the medical field, Merlys’ harrowing experience deserved attention from a medical-legal perspective,” said Pilato and Kaur. “The inhumane conditions in ICE detention centers have triggered some of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.”
In the piece, Rodriguez Hernandez wrote, “It is a bitter irony that while the first waves of the pandemic ravaged the U.S., I remained in a detention system when I could have made a difference to patients in a health care system in dire need of providers.”
Owen Lubozynski is a freelance writer for Cornell Law School.
***********************
Thanks to my good friend and renowned Immigration “Practical Scholar/Expert” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law for alerting me to this item. And, many many congrats to these amazing students and members of the NDPA!😎👍
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
Note that in the dangerous and defective “court system” being run by Garland, the Respondent continues to struggle with appeals of her asylum denial even though her husband’s identical case wasGRANTED! Worse yet, both cases should have been “no brainer” asylum grants that could have been rapidly granted by the Asylum Office without detention or Immigration Court in a properly functioning system with expert judges setting correct asylum precedents at the BIA.
No wonder this system is continuing to deny justice, threaten lives, waste resources, and create backlogs under Garland! As noted in the above posting, even the New England Journal of Medicine is up in arms about this outrageous situation and mockery of our legal process!
But, Garland and his merry band at DOJ and EOIR seem impervious to criticism, rationality, or the rule of law! And to date, they have shown little or no willingness to engage constructively with progressive human rights and Immigration experts. I guess that’s what “Miller Lite Justice” is all about!
Garland continues to get his immigration advice from this source rather than inviting progressive experts in immigration, due process, and human rights, as well as rational administration, to his “Happy Hour @ EOIR.” “Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
There is simply no excuse for Garland’s continued mishandling of EOIR and asylum law generally! And, bureaucratic “Dedicated Dockets” run from the Falls Church Tower won’t solve the problem. Not by a long shot!
Progressive advocates and members of the NDPA need to stay energized, stay angry, and keep letting the Biden Administration feel the outrage at Garland’s inexcusable continued mishandling of EOIR!These problems will NEVER be solved with the group currently calling the shots at EOIR!
So, the question remains, with all this expertise available and some obvious solutions to some really dumb and life-threatening procedures and policies, why are Garland and Mayorkas “groping in the dark”rather than bringing in and empowering the progressive experts who will solve these problems?
Due Process Forever! Let your continuing outrage at EOIR’s failure to deliver due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity be heard and felt by the Biden Administration! Don’t take “Good Enough for Government Work” as Equal Justice in America from Democrats or Republicans! “Just say no” to more “Miller Lite Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants! Wonder why our nation is struggling with racial justice? Look no further than Garland’s mishandling of EOIR!
President Biden has put Vice President Harris in charge of border issues and racial justice reforms. Progressive advocates should let her know directly that Garland is NOT getting the job done at Justice, and that they are sick and tired of not being consulted and having their expert candidates for EOIR snubbed in favor of Trump holdovers and non-progressives! If her “legacy” includes EOIR’s racially and gender insensitive, due-process denying, intentionally non-diverse “Kangaroo Courts” carrying out the Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist nativist agenda, it won’t be a “good look” for her or her future! And, it most certainly will be bad, perhaps fatal, for our nation’s future as a liberal democracy!
“Diversity @ EOIR” “What’s wrong with this picture? Let Vice President Harris know that you want a new, diverse, progressive, expert, humanitarian, due-process-oriented judiciary in our now broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
Protecting unaccompanied children at the US-Mexico border
Cornell Law School and the Cornell Migrations Initiative invite you to an upcoming virtual talk with Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, on Tuesday April 13.Details and registration info below.
Tuesday April 13, 12:15-1:15 pm ET
Wendy Young, President of KIND (Kids In Need of Defense)
A Fresh Focus on the US-Mexico Border: Protection of Unaccompanied Children Grounded in Systemic Reforms
Wendy will discuss recent developments on the U.S.-Mexico border and the need to reform our broken asylum system, especially for unaccompanied children.
I’m going to ask the obvious question: Why is Wendy Young, probably America’s leading expert on the rights and treatment of migrant children, giving speeches rather than helping Vice President Harris lead the Biden Administration’s response from the “inside” and being the face of the Administration’s public profile?
Sports fans, it’s very simple: You can’t win the game with your superstars 🌟 on the bench, or not even on your team!The stunning failure of the Biden Administration to tap the available, recognized experts from the NDPA to re-establish due process, the rule of law, common sense, and humanity in our human rights, immigration, and civil rights policies is both mind-boggling and infuriating!
It’s “designed for failure,” an all too familiar scenario when Dems take on immigration, human rights, and children’s rights. And, not surprisingly, that’s what’s happening so far, particularly in the dysfunctional Immigration Courts, which could be leading the way toward a functional asylum system, and real due process for migrant women and children, but instead continue their “due process death spiral” ☠️⚰️ under Judge Garland!
Let’s hope that Wendy & Steve can find some “light at the end of the (seemingly endless) tunnel” for us!
One thing even I know: We won’t be able to mindlessly enforce, imprison, deny, abuse, prosecute, kill, lie, deter, or deport our way to an equilibrium! But, as in the past, that doesn’t mean we won’t spend time, money, and human lives recycling all of these past “enforcement only” failures!
More forced migrants will enter the United States! That’s what forced migrants do, until we deal rationally and constructively with the conditions that force them to migrate! The fact that we haven’t been able to do so for the past half-century suggests to me the some different thinking and approaches from some “new faces,” not previously seen in government, is required.
That’s not to say that solving the problem doesn’t involve the private sector. I suspect it does, at least in some significant way. Why not ask folks like Bill & Melinda Gates, McKenzie Scott (formerly Bezos), Warren Buffett, Charles Koch, Diane Hendrickson, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Jose Andres — a philosophically and politically diverse group of highly successful individuals and thinkers to be sure — how they might go about investing in and releasing the positive power of human migration, educating the world’s younger generation for success, addressing racism, and creating viable, mutually beneficial economic opportunities outside our borders while protecting the environment? A tall order to be sure! But, these are all folks with records of thinking and acting creatively to solve problems, overcome challenges, create jobs and opportunities, and succeed at the highest levels.
Our choice as a nation is whether to comply with our Constitution, the Refugee Act of 1980, and our international obligations by setting up a fair, generous, and efficient legal system to screen forced migrants and decide who is entitled to legal protection and admission; or do we continue to ignore the laws and human decency by turning the system over to smugglers and cartels to run as part of a profitable and exploitative extralegal migration apparatus feeding into an exploitable underground population. The latter was the Trump Administration’s approach and the one touted by White Nationalist restrictionists, mostly in the GOP. However, even a few Dems seem pretty happy with it.
The GOP is heartless, lawless, and morally degraded. The Dems are clueless and leaderless on immigration and human rights. Neither side pays attention to experts with the skills necessary to rebuild immigration and honor human rights obligations. That’s a dangerous combination. And, it’s the reason why children are needlessly suffering, and will continue to do so, “on our watch” — until we harness the knowledge and skills of those actually capable of making things better!
And, for sure, thousands of desperate, often terrified, tired, hungry kids are no threat whatsoever to our “national security.” Those threats, entirely from home-grown right wing thugs, materialized on January 6 and are now embodied and fanned by the “insurrectionist wing” of the GOP. No wonder hacks like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton want to focus attention elsewhere and pick on defenseless brown-skinned children!
“Who needs a fair, functioning, asylum system at legal ports of entry? The GOP has the ‘final solution’ for families fleeing for their lives.” PHOTO: Julia Le Duc/Associated Press
Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process
By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT
The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.
The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.
“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.
The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”
Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”
In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.
These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.
“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.
But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.
This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.
“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.
“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”
The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”
Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.
The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.
“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.
Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.
When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.
. . . .
“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.
“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”
But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.
The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”
If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.
And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.
Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.
“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.
Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.
If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
–Editing by Kelly Duncan.
***********************
Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.
Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.
As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.
This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.
While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.
With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.
As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.
As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.
In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.
These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.
Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the RioGrande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?
Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?
We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.
As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, andpolicy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?
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!
Ian M. Kysel Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Here’s a summary from New Due Process Army stalwart and Georgetown Law graduate Ian M. Kysel, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School:
As the amicus briefs in the 9th circuit appeal in Flores rolled in last night, I wanted to flag one in particular on which I am co-counsel: anamicus brief by more than 125 legal scholars and non-governmental organizations. It is attached. In it, we argue that a decision by the 9th circuit allowing the government’s regulations to enter into force would violate U.S. international law obligations. The amici on this brief include several current or former senior UN human rights experts from around the world (including members of the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child) as well as the former Deans of both Harvard Law School and Yale Law School (the latter, Harold Hongju Koh, also formerly served in government as both Legal Adviser and Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the U.S. Department of State). It is unusual to have so many senior experts on an amicus brief at the court of appeals level. The experts make clear to the 9th circuit that the government’s effort to permit indefinite detention of migrant children, including asylum seekers, in secure or more secure facilities with limited ability to challenge aspects of their detention, would violate core human rights protections (including children’s right to be free from unlawful detention and their rights to special measures of protection and to consideration of the best interests of the child) and that the regulations should remain enjoined, as continued enforcement of the settlement remains in the public interest.
Here’s a link to the brief, a “mini-treatise” on the rights of child migrants under international law:
Under Article VI of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, U.S. courts have an obligation to enforce customary international law binding on the United States, as well as to construe federal law consistently with the United States’ obligations under customary international law and treaties ratified by the United States. The Government’s enjoined regulations,2 which repudiate the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Barr (“Flores Settlement”), would violate international law, including the United States’ treaty obligations and customary international law. This Court should decide the appeal in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international law. The policy changes the Government asks this Court to approve would violate the United States’ obligations to safeguard the rights of children to be free from unlawful detention. Under international law, the United States must provide children with special measures of protection and ensure children’s best interests are always a primary consideration. This Court should therefore affirm the District Court.
**************************************
Thanks to Ian and all of his wonderful colleagues for speaking up for the legal (and human) rights of some of the world’s most vulnerable children to be protected against further intentional abuses by the Trump regime and its corrupt intellectually and morally bankrupt bureaucratic toadies (past, present, and, unfortunately, future).
I had the great pleasure of working with Ian and some of his colleagues, including some of my own students and former students, on the International Migrants’ Bill of Rights Initiative at Georgetown Law now continuing at Cornell Law under the leadership of Ian and my long time friend and colleague Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
The original International Migrants’ Bill of Rights Initiative at Georgetown Law was the “brainchild” of my good friends, renowned public international law expert Professor David Stewart, former Georgetown Law Dean and U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees Alex Aleinikoff, CALS Asylum Clinic Director Professor Andy Schoenholtz, and many others.
It’s hard to describe how satisfying it is to see younger folks that I have taught and/or mentored during my career go on to become leaders of the New Due Process Army and to continue the generational battle to make Due Process for migrants a reality, rather than the cruel and lawless charade and parody of justice that it has some under this regime.
Thanks again to Ian and all the others like him for taking up up the fight. And, of course, many thanks to Steve and other scholars and teachers like him for “keeping the fires of Due Process burning bright even during one of American Democracy’s darkest nights!”
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.
“A case takes nearly 900 days to make its way through the backlogged immigration courts of Texas. The national average is about 700 days in a system sagging with nearly 700,000 cases.
A new edict from President Donald Trump’s administration orders judges of the immigration courts to speed it up.
Now the pushback begins.
Quotas planned for the nation’s 334 immigration judges will just make the backlog worse by increasing appeals and questions about due process, says Ashley Tabaddor, Los Angeles-based president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
Quotas of 700 cases a year, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, were laid out in a performance plan memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They go into effect October 1.
“We believe it is absolutely inconsistent to apply quotas and deadlines on judges who are supposed to exercise independent decision-making authority,” Tabaddor said.
“The parties that appear before the courts will be wondering if the judge is issuing the decision because she is trying to meet a deadline or quota or is she really applying her impartial adjudicative powers,” she added.
. . . .
Faster decision-making could cut the backlog, but it also has many worried about fairness.
The pressure for speed means immigrants would have to move quickly to find an attorney. Without an attorney, the likelihood of deportation increases. Nationally, about 58 percent of immigrants are represented by attorneys, according to Syracuse’s research center. But in Texas, only about a third of the immigrants have legal representation.
Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who served as chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals for immigration courts for six years, says he saw decisions rendered quickly and without proper legal analysis, leaving it necessary for many cases to be sent back to the immigration court for what he called “a redo.”
“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.
Schmidt said there are good judges who take time with cases, which is often needed in asylum pleas from immigrants from countries at war or known for persecution of certain groups.
But he also said there were “some not-very-good judges” with high productivity.
Ramping up the production line, Schmidt said, will waste time.
“You will end up with more do-overs. Some people are going to be railroaded out of the country without fairness and due process,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
“It doesn’t make any sense to squeeze them,” said Huyen Pham, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth. “When you see a lot more enforcement, it means the immigration court will see a lot more people coming through.”
Lawyers and law school professors say the faster pace of deportation proceedings by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spells more trouble ahead. Immigration courts don’t have electronic filing processes for most of the system. Many judges must share the same clerk.
For decades, the nation’s immigration courts have served as a lynchpin in a complex system now under intense scrutiny. Immigration has become a signature issue for the Trump administration.
Five years ago, the backlog was about 344,000 cases — about half today’s amount. It grew, in part, with a rise in Central Americans coming across the border in the past few years. Most were given the opportunity to argue before an immigration judge about why they should stay in the U.S.
This isn’t the first time the judges have faced an administration that wants them to change priorities. President Barack Obama ordered that the cases of Central American unaccompanied children to be moved to the top of docket.
“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.
The quota edict was followed by a memo to federal prosecutors in the criminal courts with jurisdiction over border areas to issue more misdemeanor charges against immigrants entering the country unlawfully. Sessions’ memo instructs prosecutors “to the extent practicable” to issue the misdemeanor charges for improper entry. On Wednesday, Sessions is scheduled to be in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to speak on immigration enforcement at a border sheriffs’ meeting.
**********************************************
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” — for the record, I’m a retired member of the NAIJ) hits the nail on the head. This is about denying immigrants their statutory and Constitutional rights while the Administration engages in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) an egregious political abuse that I have been railing against ever since I retired in 2016.
Judge Tabaddor’s words are worth repeating:
“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.
In plain terms this is fraud, waste, and abuse that Sessions and the DOJ are attempting to “cover up” by dishonestly attempting to “shift the blame” to immigrants, attorneys, and Immigration Judges who in fact are the victims of Session’s unethical behavior. If judges “pedaling faster” were the solution to the backlog (which it isn’t) that would mean that the current backlog was caused by Immigration Judges not working very hard, combined with attorneys and immigrants manipulating the system. Sessions has made various versions of this totally bogus claim to cover up his own “malicious incompetence.”
Indeed, by stripping Immigration Judges of authority effectively to manage their dockets; encouraging mindless enforcement by DHS; terminating DACA without any real basis; insulting and making life more difficult for attorneys trying to do their jobs of representing respondents; attacking legal assistance programs for unrepresented migrants; opening more “kangaroo courts” in locations where immigrants are abused in detention to get them to abandon their claims for relief; threatening established forms of protection (which in fact could be used to grant more cases at the Asylum Office and by stipulation — a much more sane and legal way of reducing dockets); canceling “ready to hear” cases that then are then “orbited” to the end of the docket to send Immigration Judges to detention courts where the judges sometimes did not have enough to do and the cases often weren’t ready for fair hearings; denying Immigration Judges the out of court time necessary to properly prepare cases and write decisions; and failing to emphasize the importance of quality and due process in appellate decision-making at the BIA, Sessions is contributing to and accelerating the breakdown of justice and due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts.
Miriam Valverde, Politifact, Jan. 31, 2018 – “President Donald Trump in his State of the Union address called for tighter control of legal immigration and for an end to “chain migration.” “Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives,” Trump said Jan. 30. “Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.” … But there is a long queue for certain relatives seeking to come through family sponsorship. For brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, the waiting period for a visa is over 13 years. … But there are limits on the number of visas issued per year per family category. More than 3.9 million people were in line for a visa as of Nov. 1, 2017, according to the U.S. State Department. Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens fall under a “fourth-preference” category, which had 2.3 million people waiting for a visa — the wait period is over 13 years for immigrants from most nations, but even longer for some countries with heavy demand, such as Mexico and the Philippines. Siblings in the Philippines would have to wait at least 23 years for a visa, and Mexican siblings at least 20 years. “As a practical matter, because of these long backlogs there is not as much chain migration as President Trump claims,” said Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Trump said “a single immigrant can bring in unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” … Trump’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”
Philip Bump, Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2018 – “As is so often the case with his discussion of immigrants, President Trump’s State of the Union description of “chain migration” — the process by which people in the United States can sponsor family members to join them — was long on fearmongering and short on accuracy. “The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration,” Trump said of his multipart immigration restructuring proposal. “Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security and our future.” The idea that curtailing a process to bring in members of an immigrant’s nuclear family protects the nuclear family is one thing. But there is simply no way to defend the claim that “a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” … Immigrants can’t come to the United States and sponsor 20 cousins who arrive four months later, the sort of ease-of-entry that Trump and the White House seem to imply. At best, an immigrant could bring in a spouse or child — after likely waiting an extended period for that application to be approved. “You’re looking at years and years of waiting in this legal line,” [past president and past general counsel of the Washington, D.C.-based American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), David W.] Leopold said. “For anyone to say that the continuation of sponsorship based on family relationship is going to lead to an influx of people is either lying or doesn’t understand how the system works.” “
*************************************
Go on over to LexisNexis at the above link to get further links to the full articles. Many thinks to Dan for getting “the truth” assembled into one convenient blog.
AILA Doc. No. 17082230 | Dated August 22, 2017
By Stephen Yale-Loehr*
Death felled a giant of immigration law and policy last week when Juan P. Osuna, age 54, died unexpectedly of an apparent heart attack. Juan worked for seventeen years as a senior immigration legal advisor in the Justice Department for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Juan had recently resigned as director of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and was contemplating the next chapter of his remarkable life when he passed away.
Juan was an immigrant from Colombia, and his career is an immigrant success story. I hired Juan in 1988 while he was a law student to summarize federal immigration decisions for Interpreter Releases, a weekly immigration newsletter. When Juan graduated he joined the Interpreter Releases staff as assistant editor. After I left DC to practice immigration law and teach at Cornell, Juan became managing editor. We both worked with the legendary Maury Roberts, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Juan’s government service began in 2000 as a BIA member. He rose rapidly through the ranks at the Justice Department, serving at various times as BIA board chair, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Associate Deputy Attorney General in charge of immigration policy and other issues. He was a frequent public speaker and testified several times before Congress about the immigration court system.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and Aaron El Sabrout write in honor of World Refugee Day (June 20):
“Today is World Refugee Day, a day to commemorate the strength, perseverance, and courage of displaced people around the world. Over 65 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced from their homes, the highest number since World War II. Turkey alone has accepted nearly 3 millionrefugees from Syria.
In our current political climate, some consider refugees a security threat and a drain on national resources. But America benefits economically, socially, and morally by accepting more refugees.
A new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that after six years in the United States, refugees work at higher rates than citizens. A similar 2016 study by the Tent Foundationfound that refugees fill gaps in the labor market, work harder to learn skills and languages than economic migrants, and have a “dynamic” impact on growth.
The myth that refugees drain a nation’s economic resources is false. Yes, refugees initially require a substantial resettlement cost (approximately $15,000), and often initially need welfare services. However, after eight years in the United States, refugees receive welfare at the same rate as U.S. citizens with similar education and language skills. Over a 20-year period, refugees in the U.S. pay an average of $21,000 more in taxes than the initial cost of resettling them. In fact, a study by Texas A&M professor Kalena Cortes shows that over time, refugees tend to out-earn other immigrants and add more value to the economy than the initial cost of resettling them. For example, Vietnamese-Americans, many of whom arrived as refugees, tend to be more financially stable and more employed than the average American, and therefore less likely to need welfare benefits.
Refugees play a key role in creating new jobs and raising overall wages. This is in part because they are more likely than other groups to open small businesses, creating new jobs rather than taking old ones. For example, refugees were a major factor in stabilizing the economy of Utica, NY, because they filled important gaps in the labor force and created greater economic demand for goods.Even when refugees do low-skilled work, they do not displace American workers. A study by scientists at the University of California, Davis and the University of Copenhagen found that an influx of low-wage immigrant labor tends to raise wages for everyone.
Refugees also contribute tremendously to innovation and growth. Examples of famous refugees or children of refugees who have advanced U.S. culture and knowledge include Marc Chagall, Gloria Estefan, Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Enrico Fermi, Steve Jobs, and Albert Einstein.
That history is in jeopardy. President Trump issued an executive order in March slashing refugee admissions from 110,000 to 50,000 this year and temporarily suspends all refugee admissions. That order, which federal courts have temporarily blocked, insults our history and our legacy. We have a precedent of being welcoming and gracious. That precedent is not just rooted in altruism; accepting refugees is good for America. It’s time to step up and embrace our history of welcoming people fleeing persecution around the world. As a country, we have an economic and moral imperative to be what we once promised we would be: a refuge for the world’s huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”
______
Stephen Yale-Loehr is Professor of Immigration Law Practice at Cornell Law School, where he co-directs an asylum clinic. Aaron El Sabrout is a law student at Cornell Law School.
******************************************
Sorry, Steve & Aaron. Truth, values, morality, and simple human decency play no role in this debate. Refugees are foreigners, many with different religions, other cultures, other languages, and non-white skins (we wouldn’t seriously be having this debate if all refugees were white, English speaking, Christians from, say, Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand). So in the world of Trump, his Xenophobic (and sometimes also racist) followers, and their GOP “fellow travelers” that’s all you need to know.
It’s not really about making America Great or keeping us safe; it’s about building political power by stoking xenophobia and unjustified resentment. And, the target is by no means just refugees and other migrants. No, it’s also about ginning up resentment against American citizens of Hispanic, Black, Arabic, and to some extent Asian American descent. Not coincidentally, these ethnic groups often are thought to vote more for Democrats than the GOP.
“Marco Coello, then a skinny 18-year-old high school student, was grabbed by plainclothes agents of the Venezuelan security services as he joined a 2014 demonstration against the government in Caracas.
They put a gun to his head. They attacked him with their feet, a golf club, a fire extinguisher. They tortured him with electric shocks. Then Mr. Coello was jailed for several months, and shortly after his release, he fled to the United States.
Human Rights Watch extensively documented his case in a report that year. The State Department included him in its own human rights report on Venezuela in 2015. With such an extensive paper trail of mistreatment in his home country, his lawyer, Elizabeth Blandon, expected a straightforward asylum interview when Mr. Coello appeared at an immigration office this April in Miami.
“I had this very naïve idea that we were going to walk in there and the officer was going to say, ‘It’s an honor to meet you,’” said Ms. Blandon, an immigration law expert in Weston, Fla.
Instead, he was arrested and taken to a detention facility on the edge of the Everglades. He was now a candidate for deportation. “Every time they would move me around, I would fear that they were going to take me to deport me,” said Mr. Coello, now 22.
Mr. Coello’s case drew extensive media coverage in both Miami and Caracas and, eventually, the intervention of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. The senator helped secure Mr. Coello’s release, though he could still be deported.
The case may have been a sign of just how far the government is willing to go to carry out President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
“It’s very unusual — almost unprecedented — that ICE would arrest an asylum applicant who is at a U.S.C.I.S. office waiting for their asylum interview,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School.”
***********************************************
Just because arresting individuals believed to be in the U.S. without authorization is legal doesn’t mean that it’s not stupid or wasteful in many cases. Cases like this belong in the Asylum Office.
In a well-functioning system, Mr. Coello likely would have been granted asylum following his interview. Instead, he’s on an already overcrowded U.S. Immigration Court docket with a merits hearing scheduled for approximately one year from now.
What does the U.S. gain from these types of wasteful enforcement actions? What message are we sending to Mr. Coello and others who will eventually become full members of our society? What kind of messages are we sending to Venezuela and those attempting to escape from some of the world’s most brutal governments?
Read Nicholas’s complete report, which contains more quotations from me and others, at the above link.
My good friend and esteemed retired colleague Judge Wayne Iskra of the Arlington Immigration Court used to apply a basic common sense rule: handing over your lunch bag with a couple of tacos (or a ham sandwich) or the equivalent would not be considered “material” support. I don’t remember him ever getting reversed on it; perhaps nobody wanted to appeal. I also used it with success during my time in Arlington.
Now, it seems like a BIA panel is thinking along the same lines in an unpublished opinion written by Appellate Immigration Judge John Guendelsberger for a panel that also included Chairman/Chief Appellate Immigration Judge David Neal and Appellate Immigration Judge Molly Kendall Clark.
Seems that this is just the type of important issue on which the BIA should issue a precedent decision. I’m not sure that all BIA panels are handling this issue the same way.
Thanks to Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr at Cornell Law and Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for sending this my way.
“Legal analysts and opponents say the Justice Department is likely pursuing a more methodical, strategic approach in hopes of a long-term victory — although in the process, the administration is hurting its case that the order is needed for urgent national security.
“If they don’t try to move the case as quickly as possible,” said Leon Fresco, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in President Barack Obama’s Justice Department, “it does undermine the security rationale.”
Trump’s new travel order — which suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and blocked the issuance of new visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Somalia and Syria for 90 days — was supposed to take effect March 16, but U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii blocked the administration from enforcing the critical sections of it. Early the next day, a federal judge in Maryland issued a similar ruling — leaving the administration with two different cases, in two different appellate circuits, that they would need to get overturned before they could begin carrying out the president’s directive. All roads seemed to lead to the Supreme Court.
But now it seems all but certain that the president’s revised entry ban will stay suspended at least into April, and possibly longer.
Lawyers for the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal in the Maryland case a day after the judge there ruled, but — unlike last time — they did not ask the higher court to immediately set aside the freeze on the new ban. They said they will do so Friday, but those challenging the ban will have a week to respond, and the Justice Department will then be allowed to file more written arguments by April 5.
The Trump administration has been content to let the court battle play out even more slowly in Hawaii, not elevating the dispute beyond a lower-court judge. The Justice Department has not filed a notice of its intent to appeal the ruling, and the next hearing in that case is set for March 29. Justice Department lawyers wrote Thursday that they would appeal to a higher court if that hearing doesn’t resolve in their favor. The courts will ultimately have to decide important questions, including how much authority they have to weigh in on the president’s national security determinations, whether Trump’s order was meant to discriminate against Muslims, and whether and how the president’s and his advisers’ own comments can be used against them.
There could be strategic reasons for pumping the brakes. Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said the Justice Department might be hoping for a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, of which Maryland is a part, before they bring a case before the 9th Circuit, of which Hawaii is a part. A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit unanimously rejected the administration’s bid to restore Trump’s first entry ban after it was frozen. The 4th Circuit on Thursday scheduled oral argument in its case for May 8.
And the Justice Department could be playing an even longer game, hoping that by the time the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch will have joined the justices and brought to an end what many see as a 4-to-4 split along ideological lines, said Jonathan E. Meyer, a former deputy general counsel in the Department of Homeland Security under Obama who now works in private practice at Sheppard Mullin.”
*********************************
Even assuming that the Supremes eventually take the case, by no means a “gimme,” it probably would not be heard by the Court until some time in 2018 with a decision perhaps months after the argument. During that time, it is highly likely that the Travel Ban will remain enjoined.
From a government standpoint, it’s always prudent to 1) think carefully before taking on issues that can be litigated in U.S. District Courts which have authority to issue nationwide injunctions which require only a preliminary showing and are very difficult to “undo” (by contrast, “Removal Cases” usually can only be litigated in Circuit Courts of Appeal, which, although higher on the “judicial totem pole” than USDCs, lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions in connection with such individual case judicial review); and 2) always have “Plan B.” Here, “Plan B” might be the more stringent requirements for screening and issuing visas from countries where terrorist activity has taken place set forth in Secretary of State Tillerson’s recent instructions discussed in my previous blog:
I spoke to an audience of approximately 120 members of the Cornell University community in Ithaca on Wednesday, March 8, 2017, as part of the Berger International Programs Lecture Series at Cornell Law. Many thanks to Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr for inviting me.
Read my entire speech
“EXISTENTIALISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE AT THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT – CORNELL LAW VERSION”
“Sadly, the Immigration Court System is moving further away from that due process vision. Instead, years of neglect, misunderstanding, mismanagement, and misguided priorities imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice have created judicial chaos with an expanding backlog now exceeding an astounding one half million cases and no clear plan for resolving them in the foreseeable future.”
“Nobody has been hit harder by this preventable disaster than asylum seekers, particularly scared women and children fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle of Central America. In Immigration Court, notwithstanding the life or death issues at stake, unlike criminal court there is no right to an appointed lawyer.”
“First, and foremost, the Immigration Courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. The improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers, which are highly ineffective in any event, must end. That’s unlikely to happen under the DOJ – as proved by over three decades of history, particularly recent history.”
“This is hardly “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” These unusually low asylum grant rates are impossible to justify in light of the generous standard for well-founded fear established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA in Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumption of future fear arising out of past persecution that applies in many asylum cases. Yet, the BIA has only recently and fairly timidly addressed the manifest lack of respect for asylum seekers and failure to guarantee fairness and due process for such vulnerable individuals in some cases arising in Atlanta and other courts with unrealistically low grant rates.”
“Over the past 16 years, the BIA’s inability or unwillingness to aggressively stand up for the due process rights of asylum seekers and to enforce the fair and generous standards required by American law have robbed our Immigration Court System of credibility and public support, as well as ruined the lives of many who were denied protection that should have been granted. We need a BIA which functions like a Federal Appellate Court and whose overriding mission is to ensure that the due process vision of the Immigration Courts becomes a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise.”
“So, do we abandon all hope? No, of course not! Because there are hundreds of newer lawyers out there who are former Arlington JLCs, interns, my former student, and those who have practiced before the Arlington Immigration Court.”
“They form what I call the “New Due Process Army!” And, while my time on the battlefield is winding down, they are just beginning the fight! They will keep at it for years, decades, or generations — whatever it takes to force the U.S. immigration judicial system to live up to its promise of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
“Folks, the U.S Immigration Court system is on the verge of collapse. And, there is every reason to believe that the misguided “enforce and detain to the max” policies being pursued by this Administration will drive the Immigration Courts over the edge. When that happens, a large chunk of the entire American justice system and the due process guarantees that make American great and different from most of the rest of the world will go down with it.”
“Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness! Join the New Due Process Army! Due process forever!”
