"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
The last time Sandra Rodríguez saw her son Gerson, she bent down to look him in the eye. “Be good,” she said, instructing him to behave when he encountered Border Patrol agents on the other side of the river in the United States, and when he was reunited with his uncle in Houston.
The 10-year-old nodded, giving his mother one last squinty smile. Tears caught in his dimples, she recalled, as he climbed into a raft and pushed out across the Rio Grande toward Texas from Mexico, guided by a stranger who was also trying to reach the United States.
Ms. Rodríguez expected that Gerson would be held by the Border Patrol for a few days and then transferred to a government shelter for migrant children, from which her brother in Houston would eventually be able to claim him. But Gerson seemed to disappear on the other side of the river. For six frantic days, she heard nothing about her son — no word that he had been taken into custody, no contact with the uncle in Houston.
Finally, she received a panicked phone call from a cousin in Honduras who said that Gerson was with her. The little boy was crying and disoriented, his relatives said; he seemed confused about how he had ended up back in the dangerous place he had fled.
Hundreds of migrant children and teenagers have been swiftly deported by American authorities amid the coronavirus pandemic without the opportunity to speak to a social worker or plea for asylum from the violence in their home countries — a reversal of years of established practice for dealing with young foreigners who arrive in the United States.
The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.
Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.
That process appears to have been abruptly thrown out under President Trump’s latest border decrees. Some young migrants have been deported within hours of setting foot on American soil. Others have been rousted from their beds in the middle of the night in U.S. government shelters and put on planes out of the country without any notification to their families.
The Trump administration is justifying the new practices under a 1944 law that grants the president broad power to block foreigners from entering the country in order to prevent the “serious threat” of a dangerous disease. But immigration officials in recent weeks have also been abruptly expelling migrant children and teenagers who were already in the United States when the pandemic-related order came down in late March.
Since the decree was put in effect, hundreds of young migrants have been deported, including some who had asylum appeals pending in the court system.
Some of the young people have been flown back to Central America, while others have been pushed back into Mexico, where thousands of migrants are living in filthy tent camps and overrun shelters.
In March and April, the most recent period for which data was available, 915 young migrants were expelled shortly after reaching the American border, and 60 were shipped home from the interior of the country.
During the same period, at least 166 young migrants were allowed into the United States and afforded the safeguards that were once customary. But in another unusual departure, Customs and Border Protection has refused to disclose how the government was determining which legal standards to apply to which children.
“We just can’t put it out there,” said Matthew Dyman, a public affairs specialist with the agency, citing concerns that human smugglers would exploit the information to traffic more people into the country if they knew how the laws were being applied.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration extended the stepped-up border security that allows for young migrants to be expelled at the border, saying the policy would remain in place indefinitely and be reviewed every 30 days.
Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said the policy had been “one of the most critical tools the department has used to prevent the further spread of the virus and to protect the American people, D.H.S. front-line officers and those in their care and custody from Covid-19.”
An agency spokesman said its policies for deporting children from within the interior of the country had not changed.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Caitlin’s article at the above link.
Thanks to my friend, the amazing “Due Process Warrior Queen,” 👸🏼 👑 ⚔️🛡Deb Sanders for bringing Caitlin’s article to my attention.
Kids suffer, the law is ignored, corrupt bureaucrats like Chad Wolf continue to wander around spreading lies. There is no evidence that any of those kids “rocketed” out of the country in violation of laws and human rights had coronavirus.
And if they did, returning them to a poorer nation with even fewer resources to fight the pandemic without taking proper precautions and safeguards would be totally irresponsible, inhumane, and ultimately counterproductive. What goes around, comes around!
This has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting” the U.S. from coronavirus (something that Trump otherwise largely eschews) and everything to do with advancing a racist, xenophobic, White Nationalist political agenda designed to appeal to a relatively narrow slice of Trump voters. So, how does this pass “legal muster?” Clearly, “It doesn’t!”
How do folks like Trump, Miller, Wolf, and their accomplices get away with it? Easy when GOP legislators and life-tenured Federal Judges look the other way rather than forcing the regime to comply with the rule of law and simple human decency.
Congressional letters, particularly to a lawless regime, are useless unless accompanied by veto-proof legislation. Courts that fail to take a unified “Just Say No” approach to Trump’s systemic abuses, all the way up to the Supremes, and which rule without holding the officials and lawyers masterminding these abuses legally accountable are basically feckless!
These are not difficult questions from either a legal or moral standpoint. What the Administration is doing is wrong! Period! Those who say otherwise are wrong! Period!
The Trump regime disguises their vicious attacks on human dignity and the rule of law as bogus “legal issues.” And, the Federal Courts encourage them by going along with the charade. This is no “normal Executive.” It’s a “rogue regime” and must be treated as such!
The failure to end these disgraceful practices and hold those who are abusing their authority accountable says much about the current state of our democratic institutions, justice system, civil servants, and the inadequacy and moral complacency of many of our current GOP legislators and Federal Judges.
This November, vote like your life and your humanity depends on it! Because it does!
Immigration courts in ‘chaos,’ with coronavirus effects to last years
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Raquel and her sons fled gang threats in El Salvador, survived the weeks-long journey to the U.S., and then endured the Trump administration’s 2018 separations at the southern border.
This month, she was finally going to get her chance to convince an immigration judge in San Francisco that she should be granted permanent asylum in the U.S., ending the agony of having to prepare for her court date by reliving the danger in her native country and her weeks of detention at the border.
Thanks to the coronavirus, she will have to endure the wait for three more years.
“It’s really traumatizing, because I have to keep telling them the same thing,” Raquel said. “I thought I had gotten over everything that had happened to me … but every time I remember, I can’t help crying.”
Raquel’s case is one of hundreds of thousands in the immigration courts that are being delayed by the pandemic. The courts, run by the Justice Department, have been closed for health reasons in the same way that much of U.S. public life has been on hold. But many of those who work in the system say the Trump administration has handled the shutdown in an especially haphazard manner, increasing the stress on judges and attorneys in addition to immigrants and making it harder for the courts to bounce back.
“There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The Justice Department began postponing hearings for immigrants who are not in detention on March 18, and the delays have been extended every few weeks. Hearings are now set to resume June 15. But many courts technically remain open, including the one in San Francisco, with frequently changing statuses announced on social media and a website. It also took weeks for all judges to get laptops that would allow them to work remotely, said Tabaddor, who hears immigration cases in Los Angeles.
The scattershot communications make it difficult to prepare for if and when the hearings are held, immigrants say. And it’s worse for those who have no lawyer who can help navigate the changes. About one-third of immigrants with pending cases have no representation, according to Justice Department statistics, and missing a hearing is grounds for deportation.
The Justice Department says it is being proactive in balancing safety with immigrants’ rights. A spokeswoman said the agency is “deeply concerned” for the health of its staff and the public.
In a recent legal filing, the director of the immigration courts, James McHenry, said a “one size fits all” approach to court closures and procedures wouldn’t work, given varying situations at different locations.
With postponements happening on short notice, most immigrants fighting deportation feel they must prepare for court even if pandemic-caused delays seem likely. But doing so can force them to revisit the terrifying situations they say they came to the U.S. to escape.
None who spoke with The Chronicle said they wanted to risk their health by keeping the courts open. But they and their attorneys said they wished the administration was doing more to take immigrants’ and staffers’ needs into account.
Because the immigration courts already have a backlog of more than 1 million cases, it can take years for an asylum applicant such as Raquel to go before a judge. In the meantime, they build lives here, knowing that can be yanked away if they’re ordered deported.
Raquel and others whose hearings have been postponed won’t go first when the courts reopen — they go to the back of the line. The alternative for the immigration courts would be a logistical nightmare of rescheduling everyone else’s hearings, which are now booked years in advance.
The Trump administration ended the practice of prioritizing cases of criminal immigrants or recent arrivals, and has curtailed judges’ ability to simply close the case of a low-risk migrant less deserving of deportation, which would clear court schedules for more serious cases.
The Justice Department declined to say how many hearings have been postponed because of the pandemic. But a nonprofit statistics clearinghouse estimated that the government shutdown of 2018-19 resulted in the cancellation of 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week.
Raquel’s case is emblematic of the thousands that are now in limbo. The Chronicle has agreed not to use her real name out of her concern for her safety, in accordance with its anonymous sourcing policy.
Raquel says she came to the U.S. in 2018 because a gang in the area of El Salvador where she lived threatened her family after her two sons refused to join.
She was among the immigrant families that were forcibly separated at the border. She spent a month and a half apart from her teenage son as she was shuffled between detention centers and jails. She says she endured numerous indignities, including having to shower in front of guards and being shackled by her wrists and ankles.
“It was the most bitter experience I’ve ever had,” she said in Spanish.
After finally being reunited with her son and released, Raquel rejoined her husband and other son who had come here previously, settling in San Francisco. She was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which again made her feel like “a prisoner.”
“I had never felt so hurt like I did in this country, which hurt me so much just for crossing a border illegally,” Raquel said. “That was the sin and the crime that we committed, and we paid a high price.”
Raquel spoke with The Chronicle before receiving word that her May hearing was canceled. She and her attorney had felt forced to prepare despite a high likelihood of postponement, just in case the Justice Department forged ahead.
San Francisco attorneys who are working with immigrants during the pandemic say it is an acute challenge. Stay-at-home orders complicate preparing for cases that could have life-and-death consequences for those who fled violence back home.
Difficulties include trying to submit 1,000-page filings from home, needing to discuss traumatic stories of domestic and sexual violence with immigrants who are sharing one-bedroom apartments with 10 other people, and navigating courts’ changing status on Twitter.
“It’s taking an already not-user-friendly system and spinning it into chaos to the extent that even savvy practitioners don’t know how to get information, let alone the applicant,” said Erin Quinn, an attorney in San Francisco with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
She added, “The stakes are high, and at the same time, a comment I got yesterday from a practitioner was, ‘I’m tired of trying to figure out what to do with my practice based on tweets.’”
Judges and court staffers are also frustrated. On March 22, an unprecedented partnership was formed among the unions representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who serve as prosecutors in the courts, judges and the association for attorneys who represent immigrants. They wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding it close all the courts, not just postpone hearings for immigrants who are not in detention. The agency later expanded the ability of attorneys to appear by telephone and for some judges to work from home.
Even now, however, the Justice Department is requiring some judges and staff to come in to court to handle cases of immigrants who are being detained — those hearings have not been canceled — or to process filings.
“It is very, very upsetting. Employees do not feel like they are, No. 1, being protected and, No. 2, you don’t feel respected and valued,” said Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emerita of the judges’ union.
Marks and Tabaddor say it’s part of a Trump administration pattern of stripping immigration judges of their independence at the expense of fair proceedings— an example of “haste makes waste,” Marks said. The Justice Department has set performance metrics to push judges to complete more cases, and Trump’s attorneys general have issued rulings that made it more difficult for judges to prioritize their caseloads.
The Justice Department, for its part, says it is making the courts more efficient. In November, McHenry testified before Congress that his agency had “made considerable progress in restoring (the courts’) reputation as a fully functioning, efficient and impartial administrative court system fully capable of rendering timely decisions consistent with due process.”
Quinn, the San Francisco attorney, said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.
“Everything this administration has done to speed up or deal with the backlog are actually actions that limit the meting out of justice in the courts, which even before this crisis have been gumming up the system further,” Quinn said. “We will see the impact of that now as we try to come out of this crisis.”
Meanwhile, for immigrants like Raquel, the wait will continue. Even with the hardship, she says coming to the U.S. was worth the risks.
“It’s about protecting my children,” she said. “I’ve always told my sons, if God let us get here, they have to take advantage of it. … In my country, someone walks down the block and they get assaulted or kidnapped and nobody ever finds them. But not here. Here you feel safe.”
San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.
It’s great to have you back, Tal! We’ve missed you!
It’s well worth going to the link to read Tal’s full article! Also, you’ll see some great pictures from the “home chambers” of my good friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, a Past President of the NAIJ.
What also would be great is if the dire situation in the U.S. Immigration Courts had actually improved over the past few months. But, predictably, the “downward spiral” has only accelerated.
Tal’s article brings to life the “human trauma” inflicted not only on those poor souls whose constitutional due process rights have been “sold down the river” by this “maliciously incompetent” regime, but also the unnecessary trauma inflicted on everyone touched by this disgraceful system: private and pro bono counsel, judges, interpreters, clerical staff, government counsel, and their families all get to partake of the unnecessary pain and suffering.
While it undoubtedly would take years to restore due process, fundamental fairness, and some measure of efficiency to this dysfunctional mess, the starting points aren’t “rocket science” – they are deceptively simple. One was eloquently stated by Erin Quinn, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco who “said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.” That’s actually how it used to be done in places like Arlington.
As Judge Marks points out, a host of “haste makes waste” gimmicks and enforcement schemes by this Administration (and to a lesser extent by the Obama Administration) have resulted in massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and total chaos as politicos in at the DOJ and bureaucrats in EOIR HQ “redesign and reshuffle” dockets to achieve political objectives and “send messages” without any meaningful input from the Immigration Judges and attorneys (on both sides) who actually do the work and understand the dynamics of a particular docket.
In particular, under a fair and unbiased application of legal standards there are thousands of well-documented meritorious asylum and cancellation of removal cases that could be handled in “short hearings.”Other individuals could be removed from the docket to pursue U and T nonimmigrant visas or “stateside processing” permanent immigration with USCIS. Still others have documentation establishing that they are productive, law-abiding tax-paying members of their communities, often with U.S.citizen family, who should be removed from the dockets through the type of sensible, mutually beneficial “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) programs that were beginning to show meaningful results before being arbitrarily terminated by this Administration.
This is just the “tip of the iceberg.” There are many more improvements in efficiency, without sacrificing due process, and “best practices” that could be made if this were operated as a fair and impartial court system, rather than an appendage of DHS Enforcement committed to Stephen Miller’s nativist agenda.
The other necessary piece is the one promoted by Judge Tabaddor and the NAIJ and endorsed by nearly all “non-restrictionist” experts in the field: establishing an independent Immigration Court outside of the Executive Branch. That’s not likely to happen without “regime change.”
Moreover, it’s clear from his recent actions that Billy Barr, who is currently running the Immigration Courts into the ground, actually aspires to “kneecap” the Article III Judiciary in behalf of his lord and master, Trump. Barr would be delighted if all Federal,Courts, including the Article IIIs, were functionaries of the all powerful “Unitary Executive.” Given the Supremes’ failure to stand up for immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ legal rights as they are systematically dismantled by the regime, Barr is already a ways down that road!
Tal’s article also highlights another glaring deficiency: the lack of a diverse, merit-based Immigration Judiciary committed solely to “due process with efficiency” and fair and impartial adjudications under the law, particularly the asylum laws. Experts like Erin Quinn, folks with a deep scholarly understanding of immigration and asylum laws and experience representing the individuals whose lives are caught up in this system, should be on the Immigration Bench. They are the ones with the knowledge and experience in making “hard but fair” choices and how to achieve “practical efficiency” without sacrificing due process.
Rather than actively recruiting those outstanding candidates from the private, academic, and NGO sectors with asylum experience and knowledge, so that they could interact and share their expertise and practical experiences with other judicial colleagues, the current system draws almost exclusively from the ranks of “insiders” and government prosecutors. They apparently are hired with the expectation that they will churn out orders of removals in support of DHS Enforcement without “rocking the boat.” To some extent this was also true under the Obama Administration, which also hired lopsidedly from among government attorneys.
Indeed, prior immigration experience is not even a job requirement right now. The hiring tends to favor those with high volume litigation skills, primarily gained through prosecution. That doesn’t necessarily translate into fair and scholarly judging, although it might and has in some instances.
Of course, a few do defy expectations and stand up for the legal and due process rights of respondents. But, that’s not the expectation of the politicos and bureaucrats who do the hiring. And the two-year probation period for newly hired Immigration Judges gives Administration politicos and their EOIR subordinates “leverage” on the new judges that they might not have on those who are more established in the system, particularly those who are “retirement eligible.”
Moreover, the BIA has now been “stocked” with judges with reputations for favoring enforcement and ruling against asylum seekers in an unusually high percentage of cases.The design appears to be to insure that even those who “beat the odds” and are granted asylum by an Immigration Judge get “zapped” when the DHS appeals. Even if the BIA dared not to enforce the “restrictionist party line,” the Attorney General can and does intervene in individual cases to change the result to favor DHS and then to make it a “precedent” for future cases.Could there be a clearer violation of due process and judicial ethics? I doubt it. But, the Courts of Appeals largely pretend not to see or understand the reality of what’s happening in the Immigration Courts.
Beyond that, the Immigration Judge job, intentionally in my view, has been made so unattractive for those who believe in due process for individuals and a fair application of asylum laws, that few would want to serve in the current environment. Indeed, a number of fine Immigration Judges have resigned or retired as matters of conscience because they felt unable to square “system expectations” with their oaths of office.
To state the obvious, the current version of Congress has become a feckless bystander to this ongoing human rights, constitutional, ethical, and fiscal disaster. But, the real question is whatever happened to the existing independent Article III Judiciary? They continue to remain largely above the fray and look the other way as the Constitution they are sworn to uphold is further ground into the turf every day and the screams of the abused and dehumanized (“Dred-Scottified”) emanating from this charade of a “court system” get louder and louder.Will they ever get loud enough to reach the refined ears of those ensconced in the “ivory tower” of the Article III Judiciary?
Someday! But, the impetus for the necessary changes to make Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel, intellectually dishonest, and unfulfilled promise is going to have to come from outside the current broken and intentionally unfair system and those complicit in its continuing and worsening abuses of the law and humanity!
For more than a month, under the guise of fighting the coronavirus, the Trump administration has used the nation’s public health laws as a pretext for summarily deporting refugees and children at the border.
This new border policy runs roughshod over legal rights, distracts from meaningful measures to prevent spread of the coronavirus and undermines confidence in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s top health protection agency, which delivered the directive that imposes these deportations.
The administration has weaponized an arcane provision of a quarantine law first enacted in 1893 and revised in 1944 to order the blanket deportation of asylum-seekers and unaccompanied minors at the Mexican border without any testing or finding of disease or contagion. Legal rights to hearings, appeals, asylum screening and the child-specific procedures are all ignored.
More than 20,000 people have been deported under the order, including at least 400 children in just the first few weeks, according to the administration and news reports. Though the order was justified as a short-term emergency measure, the indiscriminate deportations continue unchecked and the authorization has been extended and is subject to continued renewal.
The deportation policy was issued by the C.D.C. based on an unprecedented interpretation of the public health laws. The policy bears the unmistakable markings of a White House strategy imposed on the C.D.C. and designed to circumvent prior court rulings to achieve the administration’s political goals.
The Border Patrol is carrying out the C.D.C. directive by “expulsion” of anyone who arrives at U.S. land borders without valid documents or crosses the border illegally, not because they are contagious or sick but because they come from Mexico or Canada, regardless of their country of origin. The deportations violate the legal right to apply for asylum and ignore the special procedures for unaccompanied children.
Our immigration laws guarantee that any noncitizen “irrespective” of status, no matter how they arrive, is entitled to an asylum process. U.S. law has adopted the international obligation that refugees cannot be returned “in any manner whatsoever” to a place where they risk persecution. The courts have protected these rights again and again. When the administration tried to impose an asylum ban more than a year ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked it, calling it an “end-run” around Congress, a decision the Supreme Court refused to overturn.
Now, with the C.D.C. directive, the administration is imposing an even more sweeping prohibition on asylum by exploiting pandemic fears, and U.S. Border and Customs Protection is labeling the policy a public health “expulsion” instead of an immigration deportation.
Despite what the administration says, the order is not part of any coherent plan to stop border travel or prevent introduction or spread of contagious people or the virus, which is already widespread in the United States. Nothing limits travel from Mexico or Canada by truck drivers, those traveling for commercial or educational purposes, and many others, including green card holders and U.S. citizens. And the restrictions that exist do not apply at all to travel if it’s by airplane.
. . . .
The administration’s order expelling refugees and children tarnishes the C.D.C., does nothing to protect public health, targets the most vulnerable, tramples their rights and cloaks the deportations as fighting the coronavirus in order to escape accountability. “Flattening the curve” should not be an excuse for dismantling the law.
*************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
While the authors quite legitimately “out” the CDC for its corrupt performance, the real problem here goes much higher and cuts much more broadly across our failing democratic institutions of government. A feckless Congress, under the control of Moscow Mitch and the GOP, and the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes have given the “green light” to the Trump regime’s White Nationalist assault on the rights of asylum seekers and migrants. It’s “Dred Scottification” at its worst, and it threatens the continued existence of our nation and the lives and well-being of many of our fellow Americans.
They are a huge part of the problem: an institution charged with protecting our legal rights, including the rights of the most vulnerable among us, supposedly immune from partisan politics, that has abdicated that duty while hiding behind a barrage of right-wing legal gobbledygook.
Why is it only the four “moderate to liberal” justices that have an obligation to cross over and help the conservatives, Charlie, my man? Where was Chief Justice Roberts when the regime carried out the “Miller White Nationalist plan” running roughshod over decades of well-established legal and constitutional rights of refugees, asylum seekers, children, and other migrants, usingrationales so thin, fabricated, and totally dishonest that most high school civics students could have seen right through them. How does a bogus Immigration “Court” system run by uber partisan politicos like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and now Billy Barr come anywhere close to complying with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Pretending like the Supremes aren’t a broken, politicized institution won’t help fix the problem. Even “regime change” in November won’t get the job done overnight.
The damage is deep, severe, life-tenured, and ultimately life-threatening. But, insuring that corrupt kakistocrats like Trump and Mitch won’t be in charge of future appointments to the Supremes and rest of the Federal Judiciary is an essential starting place.
A failure to vote this regime out of office in November likely spells the end of American democracy, at least as the majority of us have lived and understand it. And, even though they obviously, and arrogantly, believe themselves to be above the fray and accountability for their actions, the “J.R. Five” eventually would go down in the heap with the rest of our nation.
If nothing else, Trump has made it very clear that HE is the only “judge” he needs, wants, or will tolerate. We have only to look as far as the failed and flailing Immigration “Courts” under Billy Barr to see what the “ideal Trump judiciary” would look and act like.
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
The hiring plan documents show shortened hiring timelines and suggest preference given to judges with records of rulings against immigrants. The documents also demonstrate the influence held over the board by the political leadership of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees the nation’s immigration court system, particularly its director, James McHenry.
“The [hiring] processes previously in place were cumbersome and not efficient but what we’re seeing with this hiring plan is that they’ve really eviscerated any protections that were put in place … to create a flexible process to fit their political priorities,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at AILA. “It’s very unclear and opaque and provides the leeway to manipulate the process.”
An EOIR official, who would only comment if identified as an agency spokeswoman, said its current process is “open, competitive, merit-based.”
“During the most recent hiring cycle, every interview panelist was a career (i.e. not political) employee, which would not have been possible under the previous procedures,” said the spokeswoman after CQ Roll Call reached out to EOIR for comment. “Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious.”
New roles
Under the current administration, the Justice Department has rapidly expanded the board. In 2018, it went from 17 members to 21. On March 31, the department announced a new rule, effective the next day, expanding the board to 23 members.
McHenry first advertised for new positions in fall 2018. But instead of referring to them as “board members,” as they had been historically described, he called them “appellate judges,” a reflection of other changes to come. Instead of working out of the board’s office in Falls Church, Va., appellate judges could work from any immigration court in the country.
They also could review cases at both the trial and the appellate level — creating potential conflicts of interest.
EOIR said its office first proposed that designation in 2000.
“Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States,” the agency spokeswoman said.
True, said Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union, the National Association of Immigration Judges. But she noted judges in an independent judiciary don’t hear cases at the trial and appellate level at the same time.
“They are taking these concepts and they’re mashing them up together to essentially walk away from the traditional court model,” she said, adding that she believes conflating the roles could be a way to dilute union membership.
Tabaddor and others are currently fighting the Justice Department over its move in January to decertify the judges’ union.
Faster hiring process
In 2008, a DOJ Inspector General investigation found widespread political hiring at the board. As a result, to curb future practices, the department implemented a multi-layered process that entailed vetting by both political appointees and career professionals.
The current hiring process appears to chip away at the role career employees play in that process, and instead amplifies that of the EOIR director and other political appointees, according to Lynch and some other experts who reviewed the changes.
McHenry refers several times in one memo that he seeks to streamline the hiring process and make it more efficient. For instance, new openings on the board are now public for only 14 days, as opposed to the previous 30 days, to “begin the application review process more quickly,” McHenry writes in the memo.
In another step, current board members have to submit their evaluations of job candidates within three days, as opposed to a week. McHenry notes other tighter deadlines for other parts of the applicant screening process.
The changes raise concerns by immigration judges, lawyers and court observers about political appointees rushing preferred candidates, including those with unresolved complaints in their records, onto the board.
“Looks like another coverup for ‘expedited,’ predetermined, ideologically-based, ‘insider’ hiring,” Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who headed the Board of Immigration Appeals under President Bill Clinton, told CQ Roll Call via email.
Schmidt, who tracks every board hire and firing on a well-known immigration blog, described the current hiring process as “a fraud and a joke — but not so funny when we consider the human lives at stake.”
According to a former longtime member of the appeals board who served under McHenry, EOIR’s director has manipulated even the newly laid out hiring process. “Everyone knows that he was changing the process along the way to ensure he got the candidates he pre-selected,” said the former board member, who spoke to CQ Roll Call on the condition of anonymity because of fear of agency retribution.
EOIR leaders did not respond to questions posed to agency leaders specifically regarding this allegation.
. . . .
**********************
Read Tanvi’s full article at the link.
Actually, I’m neither neither “ignorant [nor] mendacious.” I probably know more about EOIR than anyone alive. I”ll certainly put my knowledge of immigration law and due process up against anyone at the DOJ today!
The proof of any merit based hiring system is in the results. Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside the world of DOJ politicos and the restrictionist right would claim that the last half-dozen selections for the BIA are the “best and the brightest.” None of them actually have any recent relevant experience representing migrants or asylum seekers.
There must be hundreds if not thousands of immigration practitioners out there who would be better qualified and more deserving of these jobs. Under current conditions, what would a civil servant not actually involved in Immigration Court practice know about what makes a good BIA Appellate Immigration Judge? What would they know about legal issues facing the immigrant community? Next to nothing, to put it generously. So, what’s the benefit of involving them except to “rubber stamp” and “launder” Director McHenry’s anti-immigrant preselections. That’s exactly what the “inside” source in Tanvi’s article confirms!
What is badly needed and sorely lacking is input from the immigration bar and the NGOs who actually practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA and have seen the unmitigated due process and fundamental fairness disaster that unfolds every day under this Administration. That’s the way other judicial “merit selection” systems are run — with input from outside Government, indeed some even get input from influential non-lawyers within the community being served by the courts.
Such a system was actually used on a number of occasions during the Clinton Administration. And, hiring then didn’t take anywhere near as long as it has under the bloated, biased, and opaque systems employed by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. Not surprisingly, every appointment to the BIA since 2000 has been some type of “government insider.”
Today’s BIA is largely White, Male, Anglo, and restrictionist. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the community that the Immigration Courts are supposed to be serving. Indeed, it bears little resemblance to the composition of today’s America or the attitudes of the majority of Americans toward migrants.
Even with tons of “undue deference” given to the BIAby the Article IIIs, scarcely a week goes by without the Article IIIs highlighting some grossly defective performance in the BIA’s interpretation and application of the basics of immigration law and due process. Yet, the BIA selection process makes no effort to encourage or promote private sector applicants renowned and respected in the larger legal community for their scholarship, professionalism, and problem-solving skills. Indeed, some Immigration Judges with just those skills have prematurely been driven from the bench by this Administration’s racially biased and fundamentally unfair manipulation of the Immigration Court process.
The BIA’s bogus hiring process is a prime example of fraud, waste, and abuse. And the failure of Congress and the Article III Courts to put an end to this ridiculous perversion of justice is a disgraceful act of complicity in the disgusting “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”
INTERESTING HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE:The current 23 Board Members is where the BIA was in 2001 before the “Ashcroft Purge” artificially reduced the BIA to 12 Members to eliminate dialogue, suppress dissent, and skew results to favor DHS without any meaningful deliberation or internal opposition. In other words, creating a false impression of consensus by shutting out dissent. The immediate cratering of the quality of the BIA’s decision making caused an uproar of resistance and criticism in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Since then, the Immigration Courts have been in a two-decade-long “death spiral” with due process, fundamental fairness, judicial integrity, efficiency, and human lives among the victims.
Here’s more from Laura Lynch over at AILA about the ongoing farce at EOIR and the BIA 🤡☠️:
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American RacismStephen Miller & Count Olaf Evil Twins, Notorious Child AbusersCaitlin Dickerson National Immigration Reporter NY TimesMichael D. Shear White House Reporter NY Times
Caitlin Dickerson and Michael D. Shear report for The NY Times:
From the early days of the Trump administration, Stephen Miller, the president’s chief adviser on immigration, has repeatedly tried to use an obscure law designed to protect the nation from diseases overseas as a way to tighten the borders.
The question was, which disease?
Mr. Miller pushed for invoking the president’s broad public health powers in 2019, when an outbreak of mumps spread through immigration detention facilities in six states. He tried again that year when Border Patrol stations were hit with the flu.
When vast caravans of migrants surged toward the border in 2018, Mr. Miller looked for evidence that they carried illnesses. He asked for updates on American communities that received migrants to see if new disease was spreading there.
In 2018, dozens of migrants became seriously ill in federal custody, and two under the age of 10 died within three weeks of each other. While many viewed the incidents as resulting from negligence on the part of the border authorities, Mr. Miller instead argued that they supported his argument that President Trump should use his public health powers to justify sealing the borders.
On some occasions, Mr. Miller and the president, who also embraced these ideas, were talked down by cabinet secretaries and lawyers who argued that the public health situation at the time did not provide sufficient legal basis for such a proclamation.
That changed with the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic.
Within days of the confirmation of the first case in the United States, the White House shut American land borders to nonessential travel, closing the door to almost all migrants, including children and teenagers who arrived at the border with no parent or other adult guardian. Other international travel restrictions were introduced, as well as a pause on green card processing at American consular offices, which Mr. Miller told conservative allies in a recent private phone call was only the first step in a broader plan to restrict legal immigration.
But what has been billed by the White House as an urgent response to the coronavirus pandemic was in large part repurposed from old draft executive orders and policy discussions that have taken place repeatedly since Mr. Trump took office and have now gained new legitimacy, three former officials who were involved in the earlier deliberations said.
One official said the ideas about invoking public health and other emergency powers had been on a “wish list” of about 50 ideas to curtail immigration that Mr. Miller crafted within the first six months of the administration.
Latest Updates: Coronavirus Outbreak in the U.S.
President Trump stepped up criticism of China, part of an international backlash over the outbreak.
J. Crew becomes first major retailer to declare bankruptcy; Disney’s empire faces vast challenges.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments by conference call, and the public will be able to listen.
See more updates
Updated 48m ago
More live coverage: Global Markets New York
He had come up with the proposals, the official said, by poring through not just existing immigration laws, but the entire federal code to look for provisions that would allow the president to halt the flow of migrants into the United States.
Administration officials have repeatedly said the latest measures are needed to prevent new cases of infection from entering the country.
“This is a public health order that we’re operating under right now,” Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters earlier this month. “This is not about immigration. What’s transpiring right now is purely about infectious disease and public health.”
The White House declined to comment on the matter, but a senior administration official confirmed details of the past discussions.
The architect of the president’s assault on immigration and one of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers inside the White House, Mr. Miller has relentlessly pushed for tough restrictions on legal and illegal immigration, including policies that sought to separate families crossing the southwest border, force migrants seeking asylum to wait in squalid camps in Mexico and deny green cards to poor immigrants.
Mr. Miller argues that reducing immigration will protect jobs for American workers and keep communities safe from criminals. But critics accuse him of targeting nonwhite immigrants, pointing in part to leaked emails from his time before entering the White House in which he cited white nationalist websites and magazines and promoted theories popular with white nationalist groups.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
As America suffers, immigrants, both legal and “undocumented,” are on the front lines of those “essential workers” risking their lives to keep us healthy, safe, fed, and clothed.
Meanwhile, neo-Nazi Miller remains “on the dole” — publicly funded for putting out a steady stream of discredited and xenophobic actions designed to exploit, dehumanize, and demean many of the most courageous and necessary among us.
Can it get any more vile and disgusting?
Nearly 55 years after the end of WWII, Trump & Miller are reviving many aspects of the racist ideology and actions that we supposedly fought to end forever. Raises the question of who really won the war.
Always the opportunists, Trump and Miller now see the crisis that their “malicious incompetence” helped to aggravate as a chance to target both “Optional Practical Training” (“OPT”) for foreign students and Chinese students, one of the largest groups of those studying in the U.S. You can read about it in this article by Stuart Anderson in Forbes.https://apple.news/ADkCNTe_gTje__BlQ8c-8pg
Stuart Anderson Executive Director National Foundation for American Policy
OPT unquestionably benefits our country as well as the students, many of whom remain and become important parts of our society. The targeting of Chinese students certainly fits with the far right’s Anti-Asian movement that has helped spike a notable increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans during the pandemic. Could the revival of the Chinese Exclusion Act be far beyond on the Trump/Miller Jim Crow agenda?
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
A San Diego federal judge ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review for release a list of newly identified detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center who would be at high risk for serious health complications if they get COVID-19.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request to create a subclass of people at high risk under the pandemic, which has spread widely within the facility. The judge made his decision after learning that the facility’s warden had undercounted the number of people in that category in his initial declaration for the case.
“That information is significant,” Sabraw told attorneys during a telephonic hearing Thursday. “It does change measurably the underlying facts and whether or not the petitioners are entitled to relief.”
A spokeswoman for CoreCivic, the private prison company that runs the facility, said that the initial report sent to the judge was compiled with data from ICE Health Service Corps, which provides the medical care at the facility, and the report “was made with the best available information we had from our partners at the time.”
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Kate’s article at the link.
There was a time, long ago, when a Government agency’s submission of false, materially incomplete, or misleading information to a Federal Court would have earned sanctions up to and including threats of contempt from a U.S. District Judge. Sadly, bending the truth, omitting material information, and outright lies have become “the norm” for DHS and DOJ under Trump.
Indeed, the burden is now on the plaintiffs, often serving pro bono and stretched to the limit, to show and document for the courts each false, incomplete, or misleading affirmation from the Government. Against reason and the clear record over the past three years, FederalCourts continue to presume the proven unlikely — nay, likely impossible — that a regime led by a pathological liar and his toadies will provide them true, accurate, and complete information about anything!
Instead of asylum applicants being given “the benefit of the doubt,” as our law is supposed to require, that benefit of the doubt is now being given to an overtly bigoted and dishonest Executive who in no way has earned or deserved it. Everything has been turned upside down.
But, until the Article III Courts take actions to insure that this regime respects the integrity of the process, the practice of “lie, obfuscate, and mislead first and see if they catch you” will continue largely unabated. Vulnerable migrants aren’t the only victims here. Failing to force the regime to act in an honest, ethical, and professional manner in Federal litigation is eroding the integrity of the Article III Courts all the way up to the complicit Supremes.
Remember, several years ago, the DHS and DOJ lied to Federal Courts and the public about the existence of Sessions’s “child separation policy.” Two years later, they continue to feed erroneous information to the courts with impunity. But, who’s surprised when in the meantime the Supremes’ majority has sent such a powerful and consistent message that “Brown Lives Don’t Matter” and they won’t examine the truth or actual motivation behind any Executive attack on the rights, lives, and safety of migrants.
Here’s a report from a member of the NDPA and a Courtside reader on the front lines of the battle to save humanity: “[T]wo of our clients detained in Otay Mesa Detention Center were finally released after a Federal Judge issued a TRO. I am relieved. ICE has been unreasonable and in my opinion reckless with the lives of people in detention and even their own employees. . . .And the attorneys at the ACLU are the true heroes here and . . . students.”
Why is this abject failure of responsible Government and absence of powerful, coordinated, courageous judging that puts an end to these human rights abuses acceptable? Why isn’t our Supreme Court delivering a powerful message that Executive dishonesty, denials of due process, systemic detentionabuses, and disregard of established human rights principles aren’t acceptable in 21st Century America? Why is “Dred Scottification” the new policy endorsed by the “JR Five” on the Supremes?
Until we get better Federal Judges willing to stand up to Executive abuses and a Congress that retakes its responsibility to legislate and oversee the Executive in the area of immigration and human rights, it will continue to fall to the private bar and NGO lawyers to force officials among our failed institutions in all three Branches to do their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. But, it’s the only way it does work in today’s America. Thank goodness for the (non-regime) lawyers!
Two things stand out about this outcome: first, the remarkable philosophical flexibility of the Court’s conservatives when their political allies appear before them. The case is only the latestinstance in which they have tacitly endorsed some of the president’s more aggressive legal arguments, legitimizing his use of anti-immigrant fearmongering as public policy.
As Professor Nancy Morawetz detailed at the ImmigrationProf Blog, the majority reached its conclusion by selectively applying rules for analyzing vague laws—rules that, if applied to Barton’s case, might have led to a different result. Conservative judges often argue for resolving ambiguities by focusing on the plain meaning of statutory text. As a result, they are supposedly reluctant to assume that any statutory language is redundant or superfluous. (When the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservatives decided Democratic Governor Tony Evers couldn’t postpone in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, they leaned heavily on this principle.) But here, the majority’s reasoning required treating part of the text as redundant. Kavanaugh barely bothered to address this divergence from prevailing conservative judicial philosophy: He simply stated that “redundancies are common in statutory drafting,” and that in this case, “the better overall reading of the statute contains some redundancy.”
“That is not the argument you would expect from the conservative wing of the Court,” Professor Morawetz wrote. “It is hard to walk away without the sense that there are different statutory interpretation rules at work for those who are powerful and those who are not.”
The majority and dissenting opinions also contrast sharply in the extent to which the justices considered the impact of their decision on Barton, his family, and other people like Barton whose fates this case determined. The majority begins with a recitation of his involvement with the criminal legal system, noting his convictions “on three separate occasions spanning 12 years.” Later, Kavanaugh takes care to name the substances—methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana—involved in the drug arrests, and describes the gun and assault convictions using lurid, cinematic language, explaining that Barton and a friend “shot up” an ex-girlfriend’s house. (This phrase is decidedly not a legal term of art.) Read together, these rhetorical flourishes evoke a familiar stereotype: a scary, drug-involved career criminal who is liable to start shooting at any moment.
The Barton described in Sotomayor’s dissent, which all four liberal justices signed, sounds like a different person altogether. She carefully lays out the facts of Barton’s early life, personal challenges, and subsequent accomplishments—valuable context that Kavanaugh and company conspicuously omitted. (The details about his background included in the beginning of this article come primarily from her opinion.) For example, it was Barton’s friend, Sotomayor notes, who actually fired at the ex-girlfriend’s house. In court, Barton testified that he didn’t know the friend even had a gun, let alone planned to shoot it.
The rest of the dissent fills in more of the blanks left by the majority. She writes about Barton’s stints in boot camp and rehab, and praises him for getting his GED diploma, graduating from college, and leading “a law-abiding life.” She notes that his drug convictions were for possession, not distribution, and linked them to his since-resolved dependency. She frames Barton’s three convictions against the backdrop of his 30 years in the United States, not the 12-year period in which they occurred. And she quotes the immigration judge who evaluated Barton’s initial application for mercy and badly wanted to approve it; he “is clearly rehabilitated,” the judge said, and his family “relies on him and would suffer hardship” if he were deported.
At every juncture, Sotomayor emphasizes the real-world implications of what the conservatives presented as a rather dry question of statutory interpretation: By the time immigration authorities put Andre Barton in removal proceedings, every member of his immediate family was living in America. Deporting him deprives his family of its primary provider, and sends him off to a country he hasn’t seen in decades.
Not until the very end of Kavanaugh’s opinion does he begin to grapple with the stakes of the case before him. “Removal of a lawful permanent resident … is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members,” he wrote. “Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States.”
Just as quickly as he began to acknowledge Barton’s humanity, though, Kavanaugh returned to emphasizing the length of Barton’s rap sheet and the gravity of his transgressions. Congress chose to provide for the deportation of immigrants who commit “serious crimes,” he reasons, and to cut off those with “substantial criminal records” from the possibility of relief; the law, he writes, does not extend leniency to someone who “has amassed a criminal record of this kind.” Put differently, the Court’s conservatives are not responsible for what happened to Andre Barton; Barton, in their telling, did this to himself.
The exact words the justices use while resolving arcane questions about obscure immigration statutes may not seem significant. But when the choice the Court ultimately makes is so callously indifferent to the plight of vulnerable people, framing becomes a critical tool for defending their deliberative process. The decision in Barton v. Barr enables an unapologetically anti-immigrant president to deport longtime legal residents over events that took place years ago, breaking up families and depriving children of their parents and parents of their children. Kavanaugh knows this perfectly well; he acknowledges as much in his opinion. By sketching a two-dimensional portrait of Andre Barton as a dangerous ex-con and ignoring decades of growth and development since, Kavanaugh and the conservatives quietly absolve themselves of any moral obligation to think about it.
Jay Willis is a senior contributor at The Appeal.
*********************
Read Jay’s complete article at the link.
Yup. No surprise to readers of Courtside.
While, as usual, I was willing to give J.R. and his merry band the “benefit of the doubt,” presuming at least some modicum of intellectual honesty and human decency regardless of philosophical disposition, I’ve been “onto” the judicial, intellectual, and moral fraud going on at our highest Court for some time now.
Yeah, on a few occasions (see, e.g., Pereira, Guerrero-Lasprilla) some members of “The Five” have had no choice but to recognize that there was no possible way to justify some aspects of the Administration’s vendetta against immigrants and asylum seekers. But, on the big questions, from the bogus “Travel Ban,” to the cruel, inhuman, and clearly illegal and unconstitutional “Let ’Em Die in Mexico” Program, to the illegal White Nationalist scheme to misapply “public charge” grounds to attack the health and welfare of ethnic communities, “The Five” have been out front on the White Nationalist movement to “Dred Scottify” and dehumanize “the other.”
To be fair, the BIA decision here Matter of Jurado-Delgado, 24 I&N Dec. 24 I&N Dec. 29 (BIA 2006), originated years ago, in the “Post-Ashcroft-Purge-Era” of the BIA, during the Bush II Administration. But, all that shows is that the BIA’s drift away from the most fair and humane interpretations of the immigration laws and toward “enforcement friendly jurisprudence,” has been going on for the last two decades, across three different Administrations. However, under Trump, Sessions, Whitaker, & now Barr that “drift” has now become a “mad dash to the bottom.”
Thanks to folks like Jay Willis, Professor Nancy Morawetz, and other lawyers, commentators, and journalists, history will not let the “J.R. Five” escape unscathed for their corrupt backing of “The New Jim Crow.”
Due Process Forever! Jim Crow & Complicit Supremes, Never!
The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin Retired US District Judge SDNY Spector8745, 8/6/13, 8:58 AM, 8C, 3000×4000 (0+0), 50%, ten stop S cur, 1/12 s, R38.4, G30.1, B67.6
Whether or not he is re-elected, Donald Trump will be revered by conservatives for his judicial appointments. As of March, Trump has appointed 193 judges to the federal bench, with another 39 pending on the floor of the Senate or in the Senate judiciary committee. Those nominations will surely be acted on favorably by the Senate before 20 January 2021, when there may be a new president and a new Senate. There are another 38 district court vacancies awaiting nominations. In one presidential term, Trump may appoint up to 270 federal judges, or 31% of the entire federal judiciary. For perspective, Barack Obama appointed 329 in eight years.
There is no doubt that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, will confirm Trump’s appointments until the very last day of his term. This is of course the same Senate gatekeeper who infamously blocked Obama’s final supreme court nomination, Merrick Garland, for an entire year – on the ground that in the final year of a presidency, the Senate should await “the will of the people” in the upcoming general election. But that was then. The rules have apparently changed. McConnell will pack the courts with “right-thinking” ideologues who will carry out Trump’s agenda long after he has been subjected to the scorn of historical scrutiny.
We now know a lot about Trump’s judicial appointments. Eighty-five per cent are white and 76% are male. This is a significant step backward. Obama’s judicial appointments were 64% white and 58% male. Today, after more than three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term. Even more troubling is the average age of the Trump judges. According to Brookings, the median age of Trump’s judicial appointments by the beginning of his fourth year in office is 48.2. By the same time in his presidency, the median age of Obama’s appointees was 57.2. This means that Trump judges will serve, on average, for 10 years more than the Obama judges.
Advertisement
Hide
Statistics only tell part of the story. More important is the impact of these statistics on the critical issues that face the courts now and in the future. Courts should reflect the people they serve. I served as a federal district judge for 22 years. The vast majority of criminal defendants (in non-white-collar cases) were either African American or Hispanic, as were their family members. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases were overwhelmingly women, minorities or persons with disabilities. The same was true in actions involving prisoner rights, voting rights, housing discrimination and public benefits. Not all cases involve big corporations and business disputes.
This series examines the historic pace and nature of Trump’s remaking of the federal courts and the conservative agenda it will usher in on a range of issues from voting rights to climate and from healthcare to criminal justice
A diverse bench engenders trust and credibility. Many studies have shown that decision-makers reach better decisions when they bring a variety of experiences to their analysis. A 36-year-old lawyer who has never tried a case, has not represented individual clients, and has not spent years facing life’s challenges is not well-positioned to decide on the length of a prison term, the need for access to healthcare, abortion, food stamps, Medicare or housing, or the impact of pollution or discrimination on working people’s quality of life. It is for this reason the American Bar Association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary insists that a candidate for judicial office have at least 12 years of experience practicing law – not talking about it as a speech writer, lobbyist or media star.
When I was appointed to the bench I was 48. I had been a federal prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and had handled many civil cases in trial and appellate courts. That experience was invaluable. I knew both the substance and procedure of federal practice. The same cannot be said of many of Trump’s nominees, whose only qualifications appear to be their consistently rightwing voting records.
Consider the following four Trump judges, all of whom were appointed in their 30s. What they have in common is not their legal experience, but their outspoken support of Trump’s political agenda. All were members of the Federalist Society or other rightwing organizations, clerked for conservative judges, and have written articles or advocated for legal positions that are vastly out of step with most Americans.
Allison Rushing was 36 when she was confirmed to a seat on the fourth circuit court of appeals, 11 years after graduating from law school, and Trump’s youngest nominee to a circuit court judgeship. She clerked for then-circuit judge Neil Gorsuch and for Justice Clarence Thomas. Her law practice during the remaining nine years was limited to representing big corporations at one of the nation’s largest law firms.
Andrew Brasher was 38 when he was confirmed to a seat on the 11th circuit court of appeals, after serving for only nine months on the district court for the middle district of Alabama. In the years just before his appointment he served as Alabama’s solicitor general, often advocating for rightwing causes.
Advertisement
Hide
Justin Walker, best known for his full-throated defense of Brett Kavanaugh (for whom he clerked), was appointed as a district judge in the western district of Kentucky, at 37, just 10 years after graduating law school. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell, who held up debate on a Covid-19 relief bill to attend Walker’s induction ceremony. Less than six months after Walker took the bench, Trump announced that he intended to nominate him for an upcoming vacancy on the DC court of appeals.
Patrick Wyrick was 38 when he was confirmed as a judge for the western district of Oklahoma. Four years after graduating law school he became the solicitor general of Oklahoma. He is a protege of Scott Pruitt, the disgraced former head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
One of these judges could easily end up on the supreme court; two are known to be on the shortlist. All will probably still be on the bench 40 years from now. That alone should make voters think hard about the upcoming presidential election. As the saying goes: elections have consequences.
Shira A Scheindlin served as a United States district judge for the southern district of New York for 22 years. She is the co-chair of the Board of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a board member of the American Constitution Society
*********************
I’ve been preaching on “Courtside” for some time now about the serious deterioration of America’s Article III Judiciary in the face of Trump’s tyranny. While there are some notable exceptions among appointees of both parties, even some of the “non-Trump appointees” have done a less than heroic job of standing up for Due Process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and human rights, particularly when it comes to vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers, some children, being abused by a system that just no longer cares.
Witness the clearly unconstitutional and essentially unconscionable abuse and open mockery of the American Justice system, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity going on every day in our broken and dysfunctional U.S. Immigration “Courts” that betray and sometimes mock the most fundamental of American values.
Any Article III Judge personally subjected to the kind of intentional dehumanization (a/k/a/ “Dred Scottification”) and disrespect going on daily in Immigration Court would be outraged! But, that outrage seems to disappear when the grotesque abuses are only being inflicted on “the other.” Since, according to Trump and his cronies, the majority of Americans are “the other” — in some way or another — this abdication of judicial integrity has ominous implications far beyond the “world of immigration” — where those mistreated often get deported so their voices can no longer be heard!
While, yes, the Administration frequently gets bashed by some U.S. District Courts and some Circuits, we’re only getting at the “tip of the iceberg” for a system that is allowed to grind out unfair and substandard results and where far too many are simply railroaded out of the country without fair access to lawyers, Article III judicial review, and even time to prepare their cases or understand what they are required to prove to save their lives.
Emboldened by judicial intransigence and fecklessness, the Administration has now “one-upped” the complicit Article IIIs by simply unilaterally, and without legislation, cutting off access to even the Immigration Courts while the “J.R. Five” nods approval like a bunch of “judicial bobbleheads” gracing Stephen Miller’s mantle.
No, we can’t change life tenure. But, we can elect a President and a Senate majority committed to a diverse Federal Judiciary that will put excellence, due process, equal justice, human rights, and human understanding and empathy before far-right ideology. That’s an important start on fighting back and taking the challenge directly to those now on the bench who are committed to dehumanizing, degrading, and ignoring the rights of those who comprise the real America.
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
While corporations are going on life support thanks to this huge government bailout, undocumented immigrants and their families, among them US citizens, are being allowed to suffer, to starve, and, without access to health care, perhaps even to die. As things already stood, undocumented immigrants were ineligible for any federally funded public health insurance programs. On top of that, the millions who have tax IDs, so that they can work without formal authorization, are now denied help in the form of unemployment benefits—they are the only US taxpayers excluded from the coronavirus stimulus package.
. . . .
It’s also troubling to single out immigrants because of the historic scapegoating of immigrants during other health crises. The historian Alan M. Kraut writes that in the 1830s, Irish immigrants were stigmatized as bearers of cholera, and at the end of the nineteenth century, tuberculosis was dubbed the “Jewish disease.” Scapegoating also obscures a longer thread in a bigger pattern, regardless of which party or administration is in power. According to Professor Viladrich, the American government’s denying assistance to this group of working immigrants is the historic norm.
“A lot of this is related to a labor force that is disposable,” she said. “There is no contradiction here; it is very consistent with ACA, with welfare reform, all of that. The systematic exclusion of immigrants is parallel with the systematic exploitation of immigrants.”
Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, lobbied hard to ensure that people without work authorization would be excluded from the CARES Act. On the Senate floor, he spoke against child tax credit going to people without social security numbers:
If you want to apply for money from the government through the child tax credit program, then you have to be a legitimate person… It has nothing to do with not liking immigrants. It has to do with saying, taxpayer money shouldn’t go to non-people.
His office later said he was referring to people who fraudulently claimed a child in order to reap the federal benefit. Whatever he meant by “legitimate person” and “non-people,” the effect was the same: in the eyes of the law, undocumented immigrants would be non-people.
Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, used the term “bare life” to describe a life reduced to plain biological facts, the robbing of a person’s political existence by those who have the power to define who is included as a worthy human being and who is excluded. While the labor of undocumented people is gladly accepted, their humanity has been tidily erased by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
The immigration and legal historian Daniel Kanstroom reminds us that in times of trouble, like wars or national emergencies, immigrants are the first to get thrown overboard. It was in part due to the ban on Chinese immigrants back in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century that the demand for Mexican workers increased dramatically. In his 2007 book Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History, Kanstroom explained how this ban combined with wartime labor needs in 1917 led to the US government’s systematic recruitment of Mexican workers: “From 1917 through 1921, an estimated 50,000–80,000 Mexican farm workers entered the United States under this program, establishing a legal model and cultural mindset that endured for decades to come.”
Kanstroom cites a line from the 1911 Dillingham Commission, an extensive bipartisan investigation into immigration, that “The Mexican… is less desirable as a citizen than as a laborer.” The precedent was set, and what followed was a cycle of recruitment, restriction, and expulsion. More than one million people of Mexican ancestry were forcibly removed from the United States during the Depression years. Some of the people deported by the government to Mexico were US citizens, but then as now, because of their undocumented relatives, they were subject to the same brutal treatment.
In 1942, as a wartime labor shortage loomed, the US worked out an agreement with Mexico for short-term, low-wage workers to fill in the gap. The Bracero Program, as it was known, continued until 1964, with some 4.5 million Mexican workers legally entering the country during those years. There were enormous contradictions in the way those workers were treated: ad hoc legalization programs designed to help big farmers took place at some times; then, at others, there were huge deportation drives when the demand for labor fell off—most notoriously, the terrifying round-ups of 1954’s so-called Operation Wetback.
According to the scholar of migration Nicholas De Genova, “It is precisely their distinctive legal vulnerability, their putative ‘illegality’ and official ‘exclusion,’ that inflames the irrepressible desire and demand for undocumented migrants as a highly exploitable workforce—and thus ensures their enthusiastic importation and subordinate incorporation.” It is no mistake that there remain millions of “illegal” workers of Latino ethnicity contributing their labor, taxes, and humanity to this country; it suits America very well in the good times, and always has.
. . . .
*********************************
Read the rest of Maev’s outstanding analysis of our sordid history of abusing essential immigrant workers, from enslaved African Americans, to Chinese laborers, to Latino workers who have been propping up our economy and keeping us alive during the time of pandemic. Their reward: dehumanization, degradation, deportation without due process, and sometimes death.
I speak often at Courtside about how Trump’s self-righteous, immoral, scofflaw White Nationalist cabal — folks like Miller, Bannon, Sessions, Barr, Cuccinelli, Paul — have been engineering a vile “Dred Scottification” program to dehumanize, abuse, and exploit the most vulnerable, yet often most essential, among us.
I have also highlighted how the Trump kakistocracy’s efforts to create an extralegal, unconstitutional “Reincarnation of Jim Crow” too often have been supported and encouraged by some of those highly privileged Supreme Court Justices whose job was supposed to be protecting all of us, and particularly the most vulnerable persons, from invidious Executive abuses: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The latest example: In the middle of humanitarian trauma, the “socially distant Justices” managed to find time for a little gratuitous cruelty: denying an application to stay the regime’s irrational, racist, and unlawful “public charge rules” that threaten the lives and safety of immigrants, their U.S. citizen families, and U.S. society as a whole. https://apple.news/ABNL4e_DtRPS4eN5m5gx1ug
Amy Howe writes at Scotusblog:
Under federal immigration law, noncitizens cannot receive a green card if the government believes that they are likely to become reliant on government assistance. The dispute now before the court arose last year, after the Trump administration defined “public charge” to refer to noncitizens who receive various government benefits, such as health care, for more than 12 months over a three-year period. The challengers had argued that the rule is “impeding efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus, preserve scarce hospital capacity and medical supplies, and protect the lives of everyone in the community” because it deters immigrants from seeking testing and treatment for the virus out of fear that it will endanger their ability to obtain a green card. The federal government countered that it has made clear that the use of publicly funded health care related to COVID-19 “will not be considered in making predictions about whether” immigrants are likely to become a public charge.
The Government’s argument doesn’t pass the “straight face” test. The monetary savings from this rule are minuscule; its overriding purpose was to dump on immigrant families and intimidate ethnic, primarily Hispanic, communities. It was the “brainchild” of neo-Nazi Stephen Miller. What greater proof could there be of its White Nationalist purpose? Given the regime’s well-established record of lies and unbridled hostility toward immigrants and communities of color, why would anyone have confidence in the regime’s often hollow or disingenuous “promises?”
Those of us who believe in honoring our immigrant heritage, making our constitutional guarantees reality rather than unfulfilled promises, that human values, empathy, and kindness matter, and that we can and must do better than shallow, often outright evil, folks like Trump, Miller, Cuccinelli, Roberts, Barr, et al. need to retake our Government at the ballot box this November and build a better, fairer, more humane future for America and all persons in our country.
This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
Jennifer M. Chacon and Ervin Chemerinsky in The New York Times:
A president has broad powers over immigration under the Constitution and federal laws, but they are not unlimited. At the very least, there must be a reasonable basis for restrictions on immigration. None exists for President Trump’s threat to temporarily ban all immigrant visa admissions to the United States.
As with earlier, problematic immigration policies like the entry ban aimed at several predominantly Muslim countries, this proposal started out with a remarkably broad promise by the president: a ban on all immigration. That sweeping rhetoric has a cost of its own. Among other things, it may discourage international students from enrolling in American universities this fall, and otherwise signal “keep out” to visitors who would actually boost the economy. But beyond the rhetorical overkill, there are other problems with this ban. The actual policy proposal is much less than promised by tweet, but even in its whittled down form, it is still unlawful.
A ban on the entry of individuals who have been granted immigrant visas would not affect as many people as you might think. Although there are usually more than 180 million entries into the United States every year, most of that traffic is by people holding temporary visas. This policy would affect only those immigrants who have been authorized for permanent residency. That involves less than a million people — a number that has declined in recent years because of other entry bans, new requirements on immigrants and slow visa processing. The answer to the crushing domestic unemployment crisis caused by the coronavirus outbreak is clearly not going to be found in a ban on these immigrants.
On the other hand, the ban would cause enormous hardships for those who have been granted immigrant visas. Denial of green cards could keep parents and children and other family members from being together. Critical industries — including the overwhelmed medical industry — will lose out on vitally needed expertise just when it is needed most.
More on the Trump administration immigration policy.
Opinion | The Editorial Board
Coronavirus Doesn’t Care Where You Come From. Trump Still Does.March 31, 2020
One would think that such a draconian measure would have a strong justification. If nothing else, under the law, there has to be a legitimate basis for such an order. In upholding President Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court stressed that it was based on a “DHS and other agencies … conduct[ing] a comprehensive evaluation” and “extensive findings.” The court found it constitutional because it served the legitimate purpose of national security.
In other words, even the court’s very deferential approach to presidential decisions concerning immigration in Trump v. Hawaii demanded that the actions be reasonable. The proposed ban on immigration cannot meet that test.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of the op-ed at the link.
WISHIN’ & HOPIN’ WON’T MAKE IT SO: THE LAW IS NO LONGER SUPREME IN AMERICA — Obviously, Trump Has Placed Himself Above It, With Little Pushback From Congress Or A Compromised Supremes
But, I take issue with their characterization of Trump v. Hawaii, the so-called “Travel Ban Case,” as requiring a “reasonable justification” for Executive action in the area of immigration.
That’s what the rule should be; but, it isn’t. And, that’s unlikely to change as long as the “J.R. Five” rule the Supremes.
Even some of their “Brethren,” on the left side of the Court but the right side of history, gamely but vainly plugging away for our Constitution and some intellectual honesty from their righty colleagues, are struggling to process the obvious tilt taking place on what should be a “level plaything field.”
On the record in Hawaii, there was nothing approaching “reasonable” about the bogus “national security” grounds for the ban. The record made it clear that the real reason was invidious discrimination against Muslims to fulfill a vile White Nationalist driven campaign promise.
Almost every lower Federal Court to consider the issue realized and articulated this obvious controlling fact. It wasn’t “rocket science.” Just the courage, integrity, and decency to speak truth to power — what life tenure is supposed to be all about.
The “national security” ground was pure pretext that contravened the consensus of the Government’s own internal professional experts, as shown by the record. The “after the fact,” obviously contrived “letter” from Sessions and Kelly asking the President to act was as phony as a three-dollar bill. Indeed, the idea that either of these hacks was acting out of some genuine expertise and legitimate concern for the national security rather than just following “orders from on high” (Sessions also out of a lifelong embrace of racism and xenophobia) is preposterous.
The real message of Hawaii is that Trump can throw up any old fabricated or fraudulent rationale for xenophobia, racism, and religious bigotry designed purely for improper political purposes and the GOP Supremes’ majority will happily look the other way.
That’s apparently because the ideologues who control the Supremes truly believe the GOP far right dogma that some people are more equal than others and that only the rich and powerful truly deserve the protections of the law. That’s why corporations, guns, and Trump generally win before today’s Supremes while voters, African Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, immigrants, and unions generally lose. And, Trump “got” the “encouraging permissive message” of the “J.R. Five” (with Kavanaugh now substituting for Kennedy) loud and clear. He’s acted accordingly.
Trump is no legal scholar. But, he has spent a career using the courts as a battering ram to smash the rule of law to smithereens. This allows him to punish his enemies, reward his cronies, line his pockets, welch on his debts, stiff his creditors, and otherwise lie, cheat, and steal all the while escaping both legal and moral accountability.
If there is one thing that he can smell a mile away, it’s a toady judge. And, in Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, & Kavanaugh, the stench of cowardly complicity with tyranny is overwhelming.
Trump and his “Blitzkrieg” have simply outflanked and overwhelmed it. They have pushed decades of refugee, asylum, human rights, and immigration laws into a “mass grave” without any Congressional approval and, when expedient, have just ignored or directly contravened the clear intent of Congress. Any judge worth his or her salt would see this as an obvious existential assault on our Constitution and our fundamental values and act accordingly. But, not this Supremes’ majority. Certainly, the “J.R. Five” would have been right at home serving Henri Petain and the Vichy regime.
The “J.R. Five” employs all sorts of obtuse legal jargon and gobbledygook to cover up their immorality and intellectual dishonesty. It would be a mistake, however, to expect them to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency where immigration policy is concerned.
Expect them instead to buy Trump’s bogus public safety and economic emergency rationales hook, line, and sinker. Heck, this might even be a great opportunity for them to intervene at the U.S. District Court level to facilitate the abuse, further demoralize District Court Judges, reinforce xenophobia, suck up to Trump, and do away with nationwide injunctions except where the regime requests them. The lives of the vulnerable are dispensable to this group of privileged ivory tower jurists.
Trump and the GOP can eventually be voted out of power. But, the problems of a Supremes’ majority that has life-tenure and has lost its way, legally, intellectually, and morally, will be with us for the indefinite future.
Until that’s changed, expecting help from the Supremes in protecting democracy from tyranny is like expecting honesty, reasonableness, and leadership from Trump. Not likely!
Academic analyses, no matter how brilliant or cogent, that fail to account for the partisan bias and political realities at work at the Supremes’ today won’t help us much in predicting the bleak future of the rule of law and individual rights in America if change and reform doesn’t come to all levels of our Federal Judiciary. Sadly, what’s happening today has little to do with what we all learned in law school.
We need to be prepared to meet and deal with today’s reality, no matter how unpalatable it might be. More important, once we retake control of our country and our destiny, we need vastly improved Federal Judges at all levels, particularly the Supremes. The “J.R. Five” are the anthesis of what we should be seeking and demanding in a future, better Federal Judiciary. Never again!
There is a single, overarching reality that President Trump cannot make disappear: Due to his pathological unwillingness to take coronavirus seriously, Trump catastrophically squandered numerous early weeks that could have been used to develop a much more robust federal response, and right now we’re living through the horrible consequences.
Trump’s new suspension on immigration, which he “announced” on Twitter late last night, should be seen through this prism.
The new suspension has two rationales, according to Trump and White House officials: To continue combating coronavirus and to protect U.S. workers amid a crushing economic downturn.
It will do neither of those things in any meaningful sense — which means that it won’t have the impact that Trump himself says it’s designed to.
According to the New York Times, Trump will sign an executive order that temporarily bars “the provision of new green cards and work visas,” which means the administration will “no longer approve any applications from foreigners to live and work in the United States for an undetermined period of time.”
It’s hard to say how much of an impact this will have. As the Wall Street Journal points out:
Administration officials said the order wouldn’t make substantial changes to current U.S. policy. Even without an executive order, the administration has already all but ceased nearly every form of immigration. Most visa processing has been halted, meaning almost no one can apply for a visa to visit or move to the U.S. Visa interviews and citizenship ceremonies have been postponed and the refugee program paused.
Immigration analyst Sarah Pierce notes that a lot will turn on details, such as whether this suspension applies to foreign nationals already here and applying for green cards or trying to renew visas, or if it only applies to people outside the country who want to come here, which is effectively no longer possible already.
“If they want to make official what’s already in place, it would make a flashy statement while having minimal impact,” Pierce told me, adding that if they did apply it to people who are already here as well, it could be a lot worse.
President Trump on April 20 said he will issue an executive order temporarily suspending all immigration into the country. (Reuters)
We’ll see soon enough. But we can say right now that this isn’t a solution to the current problems we face on coronavirus, because those problems are rooted in the spread that already took place here. We are starting to bend the curve through social distancing — which Trump long resisted, and which he then tried to undo prematurely before backing off.
*********************
Yup! You can read the rest of Greg’s article at the link.
Now, in a real democracy, with an independent judiciary, we’d expect immediate and forceful repudiation and perhaps sanctions against the Executive for this latest racist scam.
But, as I have pointed out many times, the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes has a never-ending appetite for putting the law, our Constitution, and simple human decency aside and blindly supporting, enabling, and encouraging the White Nationalist regime in its various immigration scams and shenanigans. They are all as transparently bogus as this one. Trump makes an off the wall political statement out of the White Nationalist playbook and the minions run around trying to engineer and fabricate a legal pretext. The lower Federal Courts often immediately see through the fraud; but, the Supremes step in to rescue the racist agenda, sweep it under the carpet, and in doing so “greenlight” the next extreme step.
Sadly, even regime change won’t be enough to immediately restore courage, integrity, and human decency to our failed highest court. But, it will be a start. Sometimes, “internal rebellion from below” can force change, or at least some integrity and accountability, back into a failing judicial system.
Due Process Forever! White Nationalist Scams Never!
The Trump administration’s novel COVID-19 border ban invokes public health authority to erect a shadow immigration enforcement power in violation of the Refugee Act, legal safeguards for unaccompanied minors, and fundamental procedural rights. Relying on an obscure 1944 provision that provides no authority for immigration removals, the Centers for Disease Control purports to authorize summary Border Patrol expulsions of asylum seekers.
On March 20, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued a largely unnoticed but sweeping order authorizing the summary expulsion of noncitizens arriving at the border without valid documents. The Order operates wholly outside the normal immigration removal process and provides no opportunity for hearings or assertion of asylum claims. It deploys a medical quarantine authorization to override the protections of the immigration and refugee laws through the use of an unreviewable Border Patrol health “expulsion” mechanism unrelated to any finding of disease or contagion.
How the COVID-19 Expulsion Policy Works
The CDC Order is based on an emergency Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Interim Final Rule issued simultaneously with the Order under the authority of an obscure provision of the 1944 Public Health Service Act. Section 362 of that Act authorizes the Surgeon General to suspend “introduction of persons or goods” into the United States on public health grounds. Based on an unprecedented interpretation of the 1944 Act, the CDC regulation invokes the COVID-19 pandemic to redefine what constitutes “introduction of persons” and “introduction of communicable diseases” into the United States. It establishes a summary immigration expulsion process that ignores the statutory regime governing border arrivals and disregards the protections and procedures mandated by the 1980 Refugee Act and Refugee Convention as well as the special safeguards for unaccompanied minors under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”).
The CDC Order “suspending introduction of certain persons” applies to land travel from two countries, Mexico and Canada, and only to those noncitizens defined as “covered aliens.” That definition is unrelated to infection or disease. It includes only those who arrive by land without valid travel documents and immediately “suspends” their “introduction” for a renewable period of 30 days. In actuality the Order singles out those who seek asylum – and children – to order them removed to the country from which they entered or their home country “as rapidly as possible.” A recently leaked Customs and Border Protection directive makes clear that expulsion is the goal and that no process is provided.
The Order’s stated rationale is the risk alleged from “covered aliens” being crowded in “congregate settings.” The apparent justification for bypassing all legal protections and procedures is the CBP’s assertion that Border Patrol officers are “not operating pursuant to” their authority under the immigration laws.
This shadow immigration expulsion regime is not part of some coherent public health or safety plan to seal our borders or to diminish the risk of COVID-19’s introduction into the U.S. A web of other proclamations and restrictions leave open many avenues for other travelers to enter the United States. The risk of processing in congregate settings is a function of DHS’s own practices and policies; it is also not unique to landborders.
The CDC order is designed to accomplish under the guise of public health a dismantling of legal protections governing border arrivals that the Trump administration has been unable to achieve under the immigration laws. For more than a year, the administration has sought unsuccessfully to undo the asylum system at the southern border claiming that exigencies and limited government resources compel abrogating rights and protections for refugees and other noncitizens. The courts have rebuffed those attempts in critical respects. Now the administration has seized on a public health crisis to impose all it has been seeking – and more.
Unquestionably, the United States faces a pandemic of unknown scope and duration that has led to the greatest social and economic disruption and restrictions on personal movement in our lifetime. The hospital and healthcare system is under siege and threatened with collapse in some areas. Infected persons can be asymptomatic and may not be detected. The addition of contagious individuals can exacerbate spread of the virus, place additional strains on hospitals, pose dangers to healthcare workers and law enforcement officers, and increase the risk of infection for others.
But the COVID-19 ban is an act of medical gerrymandering. It is crafted to override critical legal rights and safeguards in singling out only those arriving at the border without authorization and deeming that class of people a unique and unmitigable public health threat. It tries to justify an end-run around congressionally mandated procedural rights and protections essential for refugees and unaccompanied minors and it does so to achieve an impermissible goal. What’s additionally shocking here: the statutory provision does not actually give the executive branch expulsion authority.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Lucas’s “mini treatise” at the above link.
The law is clearly against Trump here, as Lucas so eloquently and cogently sets forth. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean much in an era of a feckless GOP-stymied Congress and an authoritarian-coddling righty Supremes’ majority led by Roberts and his four sidekicks.
The Supremes have delivered a strong message to the lower Federal Courts that Trump can do just about anything he wants to migrants. He just has to invoke some transparently bogus “national security” or “emergency” rationale for ignoring the Constitution and statutes.
It’s “Dred Scottification” in full force. Largely the same way the courts buried the rights and humanity of African Americans to enable a century plus of “Jim Crow” following the end of the Civil War. The “law of the land” just became meaningless for certain people and in certain jurisdictions. “Any ol’ justification” — states’ rights, separate but equal, no jurisdiction, etc. — was more than enough to read Africans-American citizens out of their Constitutional and other legal protections.
Don’t kid yourself. That’s exactly what Trump, the GOP, and the Supremes’ majority are up to here.
And, the amazing thing, here in 21st Century America, they are getting alway with it! In plain sight!
This November, Vote Like Your Life Depends On It! Because It Does!
Happy to share my new article Mistreating Central American Refugees: Repeating History in Response to Humanitarian Challenge (forthcoming Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal). The full article can be downloaded here.
Abstract:
In the 1980s, tens of thousands of Central Americans fled to the United States seeking refuge from civil unrest that ravaged their countries. In a largely geopolitical response, the Reagan administration labeled those fleeing Guatemala and El Salvador as “economic migrants,” detained them, and largely denied their asylum claims. The illegal discrimination against these refugees was exposed in a series of lawsuits and through congressional investigations. This led to the reconsideration of thousands of cases, the enlistment of a corps of asylum officers, and an agreement on the conditions under which migrant children could be detained.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the 1980s have been forgotten, or intentionally neglected. Beginning in 2014, once again large numbers of Central American asylum seekers—including women and children—are being detained. Asylum denial rates for migrants fleeing extreme violence are high. The mixed refugee flow continues to be mischaracterized as an illegal immigration problem. Many of the tactics used in the 1980s are the same today, including hampering the ability to obtain counsel. President Trump has taken the cruelty to the next level, by invoking claims of national security in attempting to shut down asylum by forcing applicants to remain in Mexico or apply for asylum in a third country. We should remember the lessons of the past. Spending billions on harsh border enforcement that preys on human beings seeking refuge is wrongheaded. We should be implementing policies and procedures that are cognizant of the reasons migrants are fleeing today, while working on sensible, regional solutions.
Professor Hing’s article echoes one of the themes of some of my speeches and comments, although, of course, he approaches it in a much more scholarly and systematic manner.
Check out my speech here:
“JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.
What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.
In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.
How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.
As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.
The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6
The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.
Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.
Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.
In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.
Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.
My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.
So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.
The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?
As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.
Notes:
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.
24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).
27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).
Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.
Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
“Courtside” Exclusive
April 6, 2020
Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.
Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.
A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”
Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.
And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequentwillingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!
If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?
Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.
Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent inR-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.
Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.
And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.
That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”
Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA“sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.
Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”
The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.
Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.
As the coronavirus spread through California and the economic fallout of the pandemic began to hit Patricia’s community in the rural Coachella Valley, she said a new Trump administration policy had layered worries upon her worries.
The so-called “public charge” rule, which allows the government to deny green cards and visas to immigrants who rely on public benefits, went into effect in late February, just as the first cases of Covid-19 were being reported across the US.
“Now, we are in panic,” said Patricia, a 46-year-old mother of three and daughter of two elderly parents. The Guardian is not using Patricia’s real name to protect her and her undocumented family members.
Patricia’s father, who stopped seeking treatment for his pancreatic cancer after a lawyer advised that using some public medical benefits could affect his bid to gain legal status, is among the most at-risk for complications from contracting the coronavirus. So is her mother, who is diabetic.
“I have a broken heart,” she said. “We’ve been told that if we want papers to feel secure and calm here, there’s a tradeoff.”
‘I won’t survive’: Iranian scientist in US detention says Ice will let Covid-19 kill many
Although the US Citizenship and Immigration Services last week announced under pressure from lawmakers and advocacy groups that immigrants who undergo testing or treatment for Covid-19 would not be denied visas or green cards under the new rule, fear and confusion are stopping people from seeking medical care. In the midst of a pandemic, health and legal experts say that policies designed to exclude vulnerable immigrant communities from medical care are fueling a public health disaster.
“The community doesn’t trust the government right now.” said Luz Gallegos, who directs the Todec Legal Center in southern California. As Covid-19 spreads across the state, much of the center’s efforts recently have been dedicated to reassuring immigrants that they can and should take advantage of health programs if they can.
Patricia, who went to Todec for advice, said even though she’s been told that the public charge rule doesn’t apply to those who want to get tested for the coronavirus, she can’t help but worry. “With this president, you can never know,” she said. When immigration policies can change overnight, she said, “how can we have trust?”
Even before the public charge rules went into effect, a UCLA analysis found that more than 2 million Californians enrolled in the state’s public food and medical benefits programs could be affected by the rule, which allows immigration officials to turn away those seeking green cards and visas based on who are “likely to be a public charge”.
“We can’t stop the spread of disease while denying health coverage to people,” said Ninez Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “It’s irresponsible public health policy.”
Although several groups of immigrants, including asylum-seekers and refugees, are exempt from the rule, the complicated, 217-page regulation has a “chilling effect”, Ponce said, driving people to withdraw from social services even if they don’t have to.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of Maanvi’s report at the link.
SUPREME COMPLICITY SPELLS SUPREME DANGER FOR ALL AMERICANS
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Exclusive for Courtside
April 3, 2020
So, let’s be clear about what happened here with the so-called public charge regulations. The expert public commentary opposing this unlawful and unnecessary (i/o/w “stupid and malicious”) change in the regulations was overwhelming.
Support for the change outside of White Nationalist nativist “fringies” was negligible and had no basis in fact.
The Administration’s rationale, sacrificing health and welfare and screwing immigrants for some small fabricated savings that failed to consider the offsetting harm to the public and individuals, was facially absurd.
Then, the “real emergency” (as opposed to Francisco’s fabricated one) predicted by the health officials who had opposed the regulation change occurred. Now, immigrant families who often form the backbone of our “essential workforce” are at risk and they, in turn, will unavoidably spread the risk. Americans, citizens, residents, documented, undocumented, will unnecessarily die because the J.R. Five were derelict in their duties.
The truth is very straightforward: “The coronavirus pandemic is ‘Exhibit A for why the public charge rule is stupid’ said Almas Sayeed, at the California Immigrant Policy Center.” Apparently, “Exhibit A” was too deep for the “J.R. Five” to grasp.
The Constitution actually doesn’t enable the Executive to promulgate irrational policies that contradict both the best science and endanger the public health and welfare to achieve openly racist and xenophobic political goals. “Stupidity based on racism and ignorance” has no place in our Federal Government.
As Mark Joseph Stern so clearly said in Slate:
Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants.
“Stupid” actually means “illegal” in this and most other cases. That such an an obvious concept is over the heads of the ideologically biased “J.R. Five” should give us all great pause. The next time these folks decide to elevate the “stupid” and the “racist” over “rational, legal, and humane,” it could be YOUR life and future going down their drain.
If we continue to empower a regime that elevates poorly qualified individuals who have lost any sense of human values and common decency they might have possessed to life tenure in the highest courts of our land, there will be no end to the avoidable human disasters, unnecessary suffering, and tragedies that will ensue.
We need regime change in November! That won’t change the composition and qualifications of the Federal Judiciary overnight. But, it will be an absolutely necessary start toward a Government and a judiciary that understand and respect the Constitution, the rule of law, and the individual rights and human dignity of all persons before our laws. In other words, due process and equal justice for all.
Vote like you life depends on it. Because, it does!
