"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Trump & McConnell stuck a mob of these unqualified righty extremists on the lower Federal Courts. Even a super conservative Supremes might be tiring of the overt bias and lack of basic judicial competence exhibited by these judicial hacks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
The Court’s decision in United States v. Texas was 8–1, with all eight justices in the majority concluding that Tipton didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place — though they split 5-3 on why Tipton lacked jurisdiction. Only Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most reliable Republican partisan, dissented.
The case concerned 2021 guidelines, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, that instructed ICE agents to prioritize enforcement efforts against undocumented or otherwise removable immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being.”
Two red states, Texas and Louisiana, sued, essentially arguing that ICE must arrest more immigrants who do not fit these criteria. Moreover, because Texas federal courts often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case by deciding to file their lawsuits in specific parts of the state, these two red states chose Tipton — a staunchly anti-immigrant judge who has been a thorn in the Biden administration’s side since the first week of his presidency — to hear this lawsuit.
In one of the most predictable events in the US judiciary’s history, Tipton promptly obliged the two states by striking down Mayorkas’s guidelines.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Texas holds that no federal judge should have ever even considered this case. As Kavanaugh explains, the plaintiff states “have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions.” To the contrary, the Court held in Linda R. S. v. Richard D. (1973) that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
. . . .
That said, the decision does contain some language that anti-immigrant judges may latch onto to impose their preference on the country — including a paragraph that reads like it was written to preserve lawsuits challenging the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
And there is one other very frustrating thing about this case. Although the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Tipton is not the head of ICE and cannot decide who its agents arrest, it rejected a request to temporarily block Tipton’s decision last July.
UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–58. Argued November 29, 2022—Decided June 23, 2023
In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated new immigra- tion-enforcement guidelines (Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law) that prioritize the arrest and removal from the United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently, for example. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guide- lines contravene two federal statutes that they read to require the ar- rest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U. S. C. §1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (§1231(a)(2)). The District Court found that the States would incur costs due to the Executive’s failure to comply with those alleged statutory mandates, and that the States had standing to sue based on those costs. On the merits, the District Court found the Guidelines unlawful and vacated them. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the District Court’s judgment, and this Court granted certiorari before judgment.
Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. Pp. 3–14.
(a) Under Article III, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. This bedrock constitutional requirement has its roots in the separation of powers. So the threshold question here is whether the States have standing to maintain this suit. Based on this Court’s precedents and longstanding historical practice, the answer is no.
To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The District Court found that the States would incur additional costs due to the chal- lenged arrest policy. And monetary costs are an injury. But this Court has stressed that the alleged injury must also “be legally and judicially cognizable.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819. That requires that
2
UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Syllabus
the dispute is “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Ibid. Here, the States cite no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind. On the contrary, this Court has previously ruled that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619. The Linda R. S. Article III standing principle remains the law today, and the States have pointed to no case or historical prac- tice holding otherwise. Pp. 3–6.
(b) There are good reasons why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. For one, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. Moreover, such lawsuits run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___. The principle of Executive Branch enforcement dis- cretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration con- text. Courts also generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area, which are invariably affected by resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs. That is why this Court has recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. Pp. 6–9.
(c) This holding does not suggest that federal courts may never en- tertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. First, the Court has adjudi- cated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause in which a plaintiff typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecu- tion. Second, the standing analysis might differ when Congress ele- vates de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries re- dressable by a federal court. Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory respon- sibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both arrest or prosecution priorities and the provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. Fifth, policies governing the contin- ued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. But this case presents none of those scenarios. Pp. 9–12.
(d) The discrete standing question raised by this case rarely arises because federal statutes that purport to require the Executive Branch
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3 Syllabus
to make arrests or bring prosecutions are rare. This case is different from those in which the Federal Judiciary decides justiciable cases in- volving statutory requirements or prohibitions on the Executive, be- cause it implicates the Executive Branch’s enforcement discretion and raises the distinct question of whether the Federal Judiciary may in effect order the Executive Branch to take enforcement actions. The Court’s decision does not indicate any view on whether the Executive is complying with its statutory obligations. Nor does the Court’s nar- row holding signal any change in the balance of powers between Con- gress and the Executive. Pp. 12–14.
606 F. Supp. 3d 437, reversed.
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and BAR- RETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judg- ment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Key quotes from Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion:
In short, this Court’s precedents and longstanding
historical practice establish that the States’ suit here is not the kind redressable by a federal court.
B
Several good reasons explain why, as Linda R. S. held, federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind.
To begin with, when the Executive Branch elects not to arrest or prosecute, it does not exercise coercive power over an individual’s liberty or property, and thus does not infringe upon interests that courts often are called upon to protect. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. And for standing purposes, the absence of coercive power over the plaintiff makes a difference: When “a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed” to establish standing. Id., at 562 (emphasis deleted).2
Moreover, lawsuits alleging that the Executive Branch has made an insufficient number of arrests or brought an insufficient number of prosecutions run up against the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce federal law. Article II of the Constitution assigns the “executive Power” to the President and provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 1; §3. Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13); see Lujan, 504 U. S., at 576–578; Allen, 468
——————
2 By contrast, when “the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or
forgone action) at issue,” “there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 7
Opinion of the Court
U.S., at 760–761. The Executive Branch—not the Judiciary—makes arrests and prosecutes offenses on behalf of the United States. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 922–923 (1997) (Brady Act provisions held unconstitutional because, among other things, they transferred power to execute federal law to state officials); United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464 (1996) (decisions about enforcement of “the Nation’s criminal laws” lie within the “special province of the Executive” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 138 (1976) (“A lawsuit is the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law, and it is to the President, and not to the Congress, that the Constitution entrusts the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’” (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, §3)); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5 1965).
That principle of enforcement discretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration context, where the Court has stressed that the Executive’s enforcement discretion implicates not only “normal domestic law enforcement priorities” but also “foreign-policy objectives.” Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 490–491 (1999). In line with those principles, this Court has declared that the Executive Branch also retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States. Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 396 (2012) (“Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all”).
In addition to the Article II problems raised by judicial review of the Executive Branch’s arrest and prosecution policies, courts generally lack meaningful standards for assessing the propriety of enforcement choices in this area. After all, the Executive Branch must prioritize its
8 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court
enforcement efforts. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607–608 (1985). That is because the Executive Branch (i) invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and (ii) must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public- welfare needs of the American people.
This case illustrates the point. As the District Court found, the Executive Branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2). That reality is not an anomaly—it is a constant. For the last 27 years since §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2) were enacted in their current form, all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.
In light of inevitable resource constraints and regularly changing public-safety and public-welfare needs, the Executive Branch must balance many factors when devising arrest and prosecution policies. That complicated balancing process in turn leaves courts without meaningful standards for assessing those policies. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 830–832 (1985); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U. S. 182, 190–192 (1993). Therefore, in both Article III cases and Administrative Procedure Act cases, this Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions. See Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 619; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 831 (recognizing the “general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement”); ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 283 (1987) (“it is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the subject of judicial review”).3
——————
3 Also, the plaintiffs here are States, and federal courts must remain
mindful of bedrock Article III constraints in cases brought by States
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 9
Opinion of the Court
All of those considerations help explain why federal courts have not traditionally entertained lawsuits of this kind. By concluding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing here, we abide by and reinforce the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. The States’ novel standing argument, if accepted, would entail expansive judicial direction of the Department’s arrest policies. If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path. Our constitutional system of separation of powers “contemplates a more restricted role for Article III courts.” Raines, 521 U. S., at 828.
C
In holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the Executive Branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.
First, the Court has adjudicated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause. In those cases, however, a party typically seeks to prevent his or her own prosecution, not to mandate additional prosecutions
——————
against an executive agency or officer. To be sure, States sometimes have standing to sue the United States or an executive agency or officer. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992). But in our system of dual federal and state sovereignty, federal policies frequently generate indirect effects on state revenues or state spending. And when a State asserts, for example, that a federal law has produced only those kinds of indirect effects, the State’s claim for standing can become more attenuated. See Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U. S. 886 (1970); Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 16–18 (1927); cf. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561–562. In short, none of the various theories of standing asserted by the States in this case overcomes the fundamental Article III problem with this lawsuit.
10 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court
against other possible defendants. See, e.g., Wayte, 470 U. S., at 604; Armstrong, 517 U. S., at 459, 463.
Second, as the Solicitor General points out, the standing analysis might differ when Congress elevates defacto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries redressable by a federal court. See Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 3; cf. TransUnion LLC, 594 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–11); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 20 (1998); Raines, 521 U. S., at 820, n. 3; Lujan, 504 U. S., at 578; Linda R. S., 410 U. S., at 617, n. 3. For example, Congress might (i) specifically authorize suits against the Executive Branch by a defined set of plaintiffs who have suffered concrete harms from executive under-enforcement and (ii) specifically authorize the Judiciary to enter appropriate orders requiring additional arrests or prosecutions by the Executive Branch.
Here, however, the relevant statutes do not supply such specific authorization. The statutes, even under the States’ own reading, simply say that the Department “shall” arrest certain noncitizens. Given the “deep-rooted nature of law- enforcement discretion,” a purported statutory arrest mandate, without more, does not entitle any particular plaintiff to enforce that mandate in federal court. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761, 764–765, 767, n. 13; cf. Heckler, 470 U. S., at 835. For an arrest mandate to be enforceable in federal court, we would need at least a “stronger indication” from Congress that judicial review of enforcement discretion is appropriate—for example, specific authorization for particular plaintiffs to sue and for federal courts to order more arrests or prosecutions by the Executive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. We do not take a position on whether such a statute would suffice for Article III purposes; our only point is that no such statute is present in this case.4
——————
4 As the Solicitor General noted, those kinds of statutes, by infringing
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 11 Opinion of the Court
Third, the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a plaintiff arguably could obtain review of agency non-enforcement if an agency “has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” Heckler, 470 U. S., at 833, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 839 (Brennan, J., concurring); cf. 5 U. S. C. §706(1). So too, an extreme case of non-enforcement arguably could exceed the bounds of enforcement discretion and support Article III standing. But the States have not advanced a Heckler-style “abdication” argument in this case or argued that the Executive has entirely ceased enforcing the relevant statutes. Therefore, we do not analyze the standing ramifications of such a hypothetical scenario.
Fourth, a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis. That is because the challenged policy might implicate more than simply the Executive’s traditional enforcement discretion. Cf. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 11–12) (benefits such as work authorization and Medicare eligibility accompanied by non- enforcement meant that the policy was “more than simply a non-enforcement policy”); Texas v. United States, 809 F. 3d 134, 154 (CA5 2015) (Linda R. S. “concerned only nonprosecution,” which is distinct from “both nonprosecution and the conferral of benefits”), aff ’d by an equally divided Court, 579 U. S. 547 (2016). Again, we need
——————
on the Executive’s enforcement discretion, could also raise Article II issues. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 24–25.
12 UNITED STATES v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court
not resolve the Article III consequences of such a policy. Fifth, policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have already been arrested arguably might raise a different standing question than arrest or prosecution policies. Cf. Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). But this case does not concern a detention policy, so
we do not address the issue here.5
***************************************
Given the narrow resolution on standing grounds, and the reservations set forth in Section C of Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, in addition to the somewhat different approach of the three concurring Justices, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett, it’s unpredictable what this decision might mean if the DACA challenge now pending before U.S. District Judge Hanen eventually reaches the Supremes. In “point four” of “Section C,” Justice Kavanaugh goes to some length to distinguish a situation “that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status,” citing the Court’s earlier decision in DHS v. Regents, involving a DACA challenge that was decided on APA technical grounds.
Still, this is a strong statement rejecting the attempt of GOP States and GOP lower Federal Court Judges to take over Federal immigration enforcement! And, with Immigration Courts overwhelmed with a largely artificially-inflated 2 million case backlog, many consisting of cases in which relief should be granted elsewhere (like at USCIS) or where removal would actually be detrimental to the interests of the U.S., a reaffirmation of the Executive’s historical authority to set reasonable, practical immigration enforcement priorities could not come soon enough.
In that light, it’s curious why in a case where the ultimate result was lopsided, the Court DENIED the Administration’s motion for a stay pending review of the Fifth Circuit’s and USDC’s wrong orders! This unnecessarily created months of “enforcement chaos” which has been damaging both to individuals and to our national interests.
I also find it interesting that Justice Kavanaugh cited and in part relied upon the Executive’s Article II authority to enforce the law. This was also part of the rationale I used in a 1976 legal opinion written for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen reaffirming the “Legacy” INS’s authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in designating some cases as “non priority.”
That memo stated:
The ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
. . . .
The reasons for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the laws and regulations presently on the books. As a practical matter, therefore, law enforcement officials have to make policy choices as to the most effective and desirable way in which to deploy their limited resources. Thus, for example, police and prosecutors may choose to concentrate on apprehension and prosecution of perpetrators of violent crimes, while choosing not to proceed against those committing so-called “victimless crimes,” such as certain consensual sex acts and possession of small amounts of marihuana. In addition, there are times when defects in the quality, quantity, or method of gathering evidence will make it difficult to prove the matter before a court.
Aside from purely practical considerations, it is also obvious that in enacting a statute the legislature cannot possibly contemplate all of the possible circumstances in which the statute may be applied. In some situations, application of the literal letter of the law would simply be unconscionable and would serve no useful purpose. For instance, a prosecutor may well decide not to proceed against a terminally ill individual, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
You can find a copy of that legal opinion here: https://wp.me/p8eeJm-260. Still relevant, after nearly half a century!
Justice Alito gets acquainted with billionaires he hardly knew while holding salmon he never previously met and NOT drinking $1,000 per bottle wine. His “fish story” in the WSJ is a real whopper! Photo: Pro PublicaJay Kuo American Author, Producer, CEO of The Social Edge PHOTO: Facebook
Jay Kuo writes in Substack:
In some ways it was bound to happen. For months the public focus has been on Justice Clarence Thomas. Per excellent reporting by ProPublica, Thomas had secretly accepted myriad unreported gifts from billionaire-with-an-archvillain’s-name Harlan Crow: lavish private flights, luxury trips, years of private tuition for a family member, and money for the sale and renovation of his mother’s home (where she still lives rent free). With all that rotting out in the open, it was naturally time to look at the records and practices of other justices who seem to operate outside ethical rules.
This time in the barrel belongs to Justice Samuel Alito, the author and possible leaker of the Dobbs decision that struck down 50 years of federal abortion rights protections under Roe v. Wade. Like Justice Thomas, Alito has been cozy with his own billionaire, hedge fund owner Paul Singer. According to a new blockbuster report from ProPublica by the same team of reporters who brought us the corrupt tales of Justice Thomas, billionaire Singer flew Alito to Alaska on a private plane for a salmon fishing retreat back in 2008.
These billionaires sure like making friends with Supreme Court justices.
As with Thomas and Crow, Alito never disclosed the trip or his relationship with Singer, even though Singer had many cases that regularly came before the Court for review. This included a doozy in which Alito joined the majority in handing Singer’s company an outcome worth $2.4 billion. More on that below.
This controversy is further unique because Alito, seeking to get out ahead of the story, went to his buddies at the Wall Street Journal Opinions department and got them to publish an OpEd written by him entitled “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers.” It purported to “respond” to the ProPublica report hours before it was published. It is awkward and frankly embarrassing to see a justice opine on something he hasn’t even read, all in the hopes of saving his own petard.
Alito’s stated rationales for why he didn’t report the trip, along with his downplaying of his relationship with Singer, are unconvincing and in many ways ludicrous. More on that below, too. But his words do nothing to change the fact that we now have two sitting justices who are trying to explain away apparent efforts to buy influence with the Court.
As Ronald Reagan once put it, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Let’s look at the basic facts uncovered in the ProPublica reporting, and then at Alito’s lame responses in his OpEd. If Chief Justice John Roberts thought the scrutiny and collapsing public faith in the High Court had subsided, he thought wrong.
. . . .
**************************
Read Jay’s full op-Ed at the link.
Alito’s “defense” explained in plain English:
Here’s the deal. I’m only a humble Supreme’s Justice, so I didn’t really understand Federal ethics law. Rather than wasting time getting an opinion from an impartial expert, I looked at what others (defined as “my GOP judicial cronies Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia”) were doing. I reasonably concluded that since the wine I was served at dinner cost less than $1,000 a bottle, there was no problem.
Moreover, please understand that I hardly knew the guy who offered me the $100,000 trip on his private jet. That’s why I found it necessary to take a vacant seat on his private jet, to keep it from going to waste.
Since that put me in Alaska anyway, I figured why not get in a couple of days of salmon fishing with some GOP fat cat donors while roughing it in $1,000/night rustic accommodations like most Alaskans live in. It put me more in touch with the average billionaire and allowed me to empathize with their dire predicament in a socialist society.
Moreover, I’m a busy guy. How could I possibly know or predict that some of these random billionaires would have business before our Court or would have their financial interests materially affected by our rulings?
Would the “woke crowd” at Pro Publica be raising a stink if I had taken the same trip with homeless folks or asylum applicants being flown to Alaska by Gov. DeSantis or Gov. Abbott. I doubt it! Clearly, the liberal media’s double standard is being applied here.
These outrageous charges against me and GOP billionaires I hardly know are just more proof that under Democrats, America has become hostile territory for billionaires. No “reasonable person” (defined as a “GOP Judge who hobnobs with billionaires they hardly know”) would see an “appearance of impropriety” here!
How many “average American reasonable persons” other than me find themselves harassed by the press just for weekending with random billionaires in Alaska? None! Has there ever been a clearer case of media bullying?
As I always say, ignorance of the law is no excuse when applied to poor criminal defendants or unrepresented immigrants who can’t understand the complexities and illogic of our immigration laws. But, I’m not a criminal defendant nor am I a migrant, who, in my view, isn’t a “person” at all under our Constitution. Let them eat cake or drink $1,000 bottles of wine. Moreover, bad judgement is not a crime nor is it a legal disqualification from being a Justice and continuing to pass final, un-reviewable judgement on others.
Finally, I want to say that I am being persecuted by far left journalists who are threatening to publish facts in an article I’ve not yet read. They gave me a chance to respond in advance, but I stonewalled it in favor of an op-ed that was immediately run by my buddies over at the WSJ editorial board. That’s what any “reasonable person” would do when falsely accused of accepting favors from billionaires they hardly know.
Let’s look at this another way.Immigration Judge X accepts a $100,000 private plane ride and a couple of days of salmon fishing and uber-expensive dinners at an exclusive, $1,000 per night fishing camp in Alaska. Judge X claims that he barely knew the guy who offered him the trip, but merely went to keep an otherwise vacant seat on the private plane from going unused. Judge X was later shocked to learn that his benefactor’s spouse had a removal case pending before Judge X, which Judge X later heard and decided in the spouse’s favor.
Raise your hand 🙋🏼♀️if you think Judge X would still have a job after these facts surfaced! Would Judge X get a chance to “rebut the allegations in advance” in the WSJ?
Think that there is “equal justice for all” in America?
Ron DeSantis Dave Grandlund PoliticalCartoons.com Republished under license Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are “campaigning” on an agenda of racism, hate, and White Supremacist grievance not seen since the late Gov. George Wallace. Yet, mainstream media has largely “normalized” that which would have been unacceptable and unthinkable only a few years ago!
Maine Voices: ‘Woke’ should not be a four-letter word
Being aware of how we have treated and still treat other people in our society is so important to our society’s evolving that it should be honored, not vilified.
It is frustrating to see the continuous redefining of words and terms by the extremist conservative element in our society and government. One of these terms is “woke.” According to Merriam-Webster, the definition is “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues.” I will add in the qualification as well: “especially issues of ABOUT THE AUTHOR
For my entire life I have strived to embrace this philosophy, trying to listen to and understand other opinions, beliefs and religions, whether they agreed with mine or not, understanding that one cannot fully comprehend a point of view without appreciating the counterpoint. This certainly requires personal evolution and maturity. Being aware of the true history of our country, of how we have treated and still treat other people in our society, is so important to our society’s evolving that it should be honored, not vilified.
The term “woke” has now been unjustly transformed into a negative term. Let that sink in: Attention to important facts and issues, the truth, is something to avoid and discredit. Somehow, this makes sense to a significant number of our political leaders and fellow Americans. It appears that what is most troubling for those who would see “woke” as a vile four-letter word is the qualification above, that it applies to “issues of racial and social justice.”
One of the tag lines for objecting to this thought is that it may cause someone to feel uncomfortable or criticized by being confronted with these historical facts. Personally, I strongly desire to know the truth. I am delighted – admittedly, shocked sometimes – by learning about the history we were never taught, which was suppressed to a large extent for so many years by those who perpetrated many injustices. The historical truth has never made me feel bad about myself. In fact, it is enlightening. It expands my understanding of how and why we have come to this place in our evolution. It shows me how to be better and more empathetic, and it suggests the path forward.
I believe I do understand why this can be so threatening and discomforting to so many. I believe that the truth is like a mirror to them. They see their own racist views, their distrust of anyone they perceive as being “different” as a significant threat. I feel so sad for them, since in my life, through being open to other races, ethnicities, religions and thoughts, I have learned so much and have been blessed with a much more beautiful world, life and friends.
It is extremely troubling to see elected officials, the leaders of our political parties, and fellow Americans embracing and endorsing this philosophy of derision, division and hateful rhetoric that has its roots in the cesspool of white supremacist thought. They are leading us into the abyss of an authoritarian kakistocracy, or government by the worst of us. We must all, every rational one of us, stand and reject this thinking. We must only, and always, embrace truth, the actual facts. These people should not be leading our wonderful country.
Don Bessey is an Air Force veteran of the Vietnam War and a resident of Old Orchard Beach.
************************
Well said, Don! Thanks for speaking out so forcefully!
Don’s views echo several previous postings from Courtside:
Walter Rhein: “When people say they are ‘anti-woke,’ I interrupt them and say ‘You mean ‘anti-black.’ They become enraged and act like they’re the victims (like racists always do).”https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8tJ
*************************
As [Villanova University President] Father [Peter M.] Donohue said at yesterday’s celebration, “‘Woke’ means social justice!” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8vF
Emily Garcia Litigation Reporter Bloomberg Law PHOTO: talkingbiznews.comThis phase of the Inquisition is over. But, torture is still widely practiced worldwide. US Officialdom has shown little enthusiasm for carrying out its mandatory protection responsibilities under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). PHOTO: Public Realm
The Supreme Court recently removed one procedural hurdle for noncitizens seeking humanitarian relief but the high court’s ruling clears up no substantial issues about a law they’ll make their claims under, immigration attorneys say—allowing some relief seekers to be sent back to torturous conditions.
Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a Guatemalan transgender woman, asked for federal review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. In a unanimous decision, the justices said federal judges can weigh in on BIA’s decisions before discretionary administrative remedies are exhausted. In Santos-Zacaria’s case, her petition may be sent back to BIA for further review but that doesn’t guarantee relief.
While lawyers are hopeful that earlier review by a federal court will facilitate a smoother process for their clients, they express concerns that immigration judges and the BIA too readily dismiss the risk of torture, and say it shouldn’t be so difficult to get humanitarian relief.
CAT protections, including deferral and withholding of removal, allow noncitizens who aren’t eligible for asylum to remain in the US. To receive protection, a noncitizen must show an immigration judge that if they are deported, it’s more likely than not that they will be tortured with government acquiescence or participation. Unlike asylum, protections under the Convention are mandatory and serious criminal convictions can’t disqualify a noncitizen. But protections are especially difficult to win, said Eleni Bakst, a lawyer at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition.
. . . .
Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and chairman of the BIA between and 2001, said the process for evaluating claims under the Convention isn’t scientific. There’s no formula to plug in that will tell the odds of someone being tortured. “It’s sort of in the mind of the beholder,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
As an immigration judge, Schmidt said he and other immigration judges relied heavily on country conditions reports published by the US Department of State. Asked if he believed the reports were an adequate representation of a country, Schmidt said “certainly not.”
Bakst said statistics provided by other countries can also be inaccurate. In El Salvador, the government doesn’t allow monitoring bodies into its prisons so data on inmate torture is incomplete.
Pushing back against questionable reports and statistics, immigration advocates are aware that immigration judges and the BIA may dismiss their client’s risk of torture, and their client may be tortured anyway.
Such was the case for Patrick Julney, a client of CAIR Coalition who was denied deferral under the Convention for failure to show that the likelihood of torture was more than 50% and deported to Haiti. Bakst said that “immediately upon his arrival in Haiti, he was imprisoned and tortured.” Julney was denied access to food, water, and medicine.
Estelle McKee, a clinical immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, represented a schizophrenic man from El Salvador who was denied CAT relief. After his deportation, McKee hired a Salvadorean attorney to track down her client.
She said the attorney couldn’t even enter her client’s village because it was gang-controlled.
“I don’t have much hope that he survived,” McKee said.
McKee and other immigration attorneys agree that the Supreme Court’s decision will speed up the humanitarian claims process, though results may vary. Julney’s case was reviewed by the Third Circuit, but his outcome was unchanged.
. . . .
************************
Reads Emily’s full, well-written article at the above link.
A Government colleague once remarked to me that “the U.S. should never have signed the CAT.” Obviously, that private view has permeated and driven USG policy on implementing the CAT, particularly at the DOJ where it was immediately treated as “PNG” because of its lack of exclusionary clauses. Even “bad guys” aren’t supposed to be returned to torture (in terms of legal theory, if not reality).
There is no objective evidence that torture is on the decline worldwide. See, e.g., https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/torture/. Yet the mandatory protection required by the CAT remains elusive and quite arbitrary within the U.S. legal system.
One of the best examples of how Government officials who should be insuring that the legal protections under CAT are fairly and reasonably applied to achieve the Convention’s purposes are instead promoting an “any reason to deny” culture is former AG John Ashcroft’s precedent decision in Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006). There, Ashcroft reversed a CAT grant by the IJ and the BIA to an unrepresented respondent. In the process, Ashcroft established the “enhanced test” that to gain CAT protection, the respondent must “establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to happen.”
In other words, this is an official invitation, some might say directive, to IJs to “lengthen the chain of causation until it breaks” (which it inevitably will, in most cases) and protection can be denied.
Moreover, many CAT claims, like this one, involve unrepresented respondents. The chances of an unrepresented respondent understanding the “chain of causation” or what it means to prove “each step is more likely than not to occur” are very slim.
Additionally, even if they did understand, since many of the unrepresented respondents are in detention, they would have little or no realistic chance of obtaining the type of detailed, timely expert testimony and comprehensive documentation, far beyond the DOS Country Reports (which, by the way are only available in English), necessary to overcome Ashcroft’s “de facto presumption of denial” and prove that every step of the “hypothetical chain” is “more likely than not” to happen.
Effectively, every problem mentioned by Emily and expert practitioners in this article is essentially (intentionally) magnified by J-F-F- and other anti-CAT administrative precedents.
CAT relief is mandatory, thus suggesting a high obligation on the part of IJs and other Government officials to insure non-return to torture. Yet, Ashcroft chastises the IJ involved in J-F-F- for essentially insuring that the respondent exercised his legal right to apply for CAT and helping him develop the record. Ashcroft even took the extraordinary step of disqualifying this IJ from any “hypothetical” future proceedings involving this respondent.
At the beginning of the BIA’s quest to interpret CAT (ironically at the same time Bush Administration lawyers at DOJ were secretly searching for legal pretexts to justify torture), I dissented from an unduly restrictive BIA precedent Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 304 (BIA 2002), Paul Wickham Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting, joined by Board Members John W. Guendelsberger, Noel Ann Brennan, Cecelia M. Espenoza, and Juan P. Osuna.
There, I stated:
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
More than two decades after J-E-, my fears and predictions of officially-sanctioned non-compliance with CAT unfortunately continue to be proved correct.
I also note with pride that our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief before the Supremes in Santos-Zacaria supporting the interpretation that eventually prevailed.
“Dagoberto Luna petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to rescind an in absentia removal order. Luna contends he received a defective Notice to Appear that renders the in absentia removal order invalid. We agree. We GRANT Luna’s petition, VACATE, and REMAND for further proceedings.”
[Hats off yet again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
When will they learn, when will they ever learn? The ultra-conservative 5th Circuit pays attention when Raed litigates in behalf of individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Why doesn’t Garland?
The BIA’s approach to statutory interpretation under Chevron tends to be one-sided in favor of DHS Enforcement. IMAGE: Wikimedia Commons
BIA HEADNOTE:
(1) A conviction for burglary of a building under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is not categorically an aggravated felony burglary offense under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because the statute is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the definition of “building” under New York law.
(2) A conviction for displaying what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm while committing burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another and therefore constitutes an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Yuriy Pereyaslavskiy, Esquire, Albany, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Donald W. Cassidy, Associate Legal Advisor
BEFORE: Board Panel: GOODWIN and WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judges. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: BROWN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Denise G. Brown, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2018). As an initial matter, I have reservations that this case is an appropriate means through which to establish binding precedent on this issue as the Immigration Judge did not reach it. While the parties have had an opportunity to address the issue through supplemental briefing, we lack the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s reasoning. It is our role to “review” questions of law de novo, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2023), but there is no underlying decision regarding whether the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence for us to review here.
Further, I disagree with the majority’s analysis by which it concludes that a violation of section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. Section 140.25(1)(d) provides that a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree:
when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when
. . . [i]n effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime
…
. . . [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm . . . .
N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (McKinney 2017). A crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018).
I disagree with the majority that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) includes as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. In my view, second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) does not include any element that requires the presence of a person other than the defendant. In the absence of an element that requires the presence of a person, the majority’s conclusion that this offense is a crime of violence is unavailing. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) (“The phrase ‘against another,’ when modifying the ‘use of force,’ demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual.”).
The majority’s analysis heavily relies on case law involving robbery to support its conclusion that second degree burglary under this subsection is a crime of violence. But under New York law, robbery always involves forcible stealing from a person and burglary does not. In United States v. Ojeda, 951 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that it was possible to commit New York first degree robbery with the aggravating factor of the display of an
apparent weapon without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court held that the defendant’s argument ignored the foundational element being aggravated, i.e., forcible stealing, which is defined in New York to include the use or threatened immediate use of physical force upon another person. Id. at 72. Forcible stealing is an element for every degree of robbery in New York and “that element categorically requires the use of physical force.” Id. Thus, New York robbery always includes as an element the use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of whether an apparent weapon is displayed. Accordingly, the New York robbery statutes are distinguishable from the burglary statute at issue here, and thus the case law relied upon by the majority relating to robbery is not persuasive in this context. For the same reason, the case law cited by the majority relating to assault is likewise unpersuasive.
The majority also relies on the definition of “display” in the New York model jury instructions to conclude that a display of an apparent weapon must be in front of a person. The majority concludes that “display” in the context of section 140.25(1)(d) necessarily means a conscious display of an apparent weapon to a victim. “Display” as described by the model jury instructions does not constitute the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person because, as the Supreme Court explained in Borden, “against the person of another” means “in opposition to” and expresses “a kind of directedness or targeting” rather than being akin to “waves crashing against the shore.” Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1825–26. However, the language of the model jury instructions—i.e., describing display to be “manifest[ing] the presence of an object that can reasonably be perceived” as a weapon—does not require the type of directedness or targeting described in Borden. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. & Model Colloquies, Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (May 2018). The language instead appears to contemplate that a person be “the mere recipient” of the display. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1826.
Even if the majority’s conclusion were correct that display of an apparent weapon necessarily contemplates the presence of a person to perceive it and that it necessarily involved conduct directed at another person as contemplated by Borden—a conclusion not supported by the actual language of section 140.25(1)(d)—there is nothing in the statute that requires the person perceiving the display to be the victim of the crime, rather than a bystander or another defendant.
The majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) is categorically a crime of violence also assumes that the crime a defendant intends to commit is necessarily a “confrontational crime.” But there is nothing in the statute that connects the display of an apparent weapon with
the crime the defendant has “intent to commit [in the building],” and thus nothing in the statute that requires the crime a defendant has “intent to commit [in the building]” to be a confrontational crime, as the majority concludes. N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25.
For these reasons, I am not persuaded by the majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. I would instead conclude that it is not and that therefore the respondent is not removable as charged.
******************************
Thanks for speaking out, Judge Brown, against the BIA’s one-sided approach to statutory interpretation that almost always favors DHS over better and more reasonable interpretations offered by individuals. Then, the Article III Courts compound the problem by giving “Chevron deference” to the BIA’s one-sided jurisprudence!
Dissent matters!
Here’s Judge Brown’s official EOIR bio:
Denise G. Brown
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Denise G. Brown as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge in July 2021. Judge Brown earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Catholic University of America. From July 2007 to July 2021, she has served as an attorney advisor, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review. During this time, from March to September 2019, she served on detail as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, and from January to July 2017, she served on detail as a temporary Immigration Judge at the Headquarters Immigration Court, EOIR. From December 1999 to July 2007, she served as an Associate General Counsel at the Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force. Judge Brown is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
Except, perhaps, in Florida and other GOP-controlled “mini-reichs” where hate, censorship, and persecution of vulnerable populations have become official policy! Is this REALLY the way the next generations of Americans want to live and be remembered by history? PHOTO: Public Realm
Last Wednesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — who is expected to announce his campaign for the presidency as soon as tomorrow — signed a gaggle of bills targeting LGBTQ youth.
In addition to those he had already signed into law — including a “Don’t Say Gay” measure barring teachers from mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity and another prohibiting gender-affirming care — his latest laws expand the state’s prohibition on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, require that students use bathrooms associated with their sex assigned at birth, prohibit adults from taking children to see drag shows, and bar teachers from asking students about their preferred pronouns.
Another of the bills DeSantis just signed into law allows the state of Florida to take transgender minors away from parents who help them obtain gender-affirming care.
In raging against gender-affirming care, DeSantis lied that “they’re literally chopping off the private parts of young kids.” In fact, genital surgery is rarely, if ever, done under the age of 18. It’s not even all that common for adults. DeSantis is lying about it to scare people.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential frontrunner has made it clear that trans people have no place in his vision of America:
“I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concepts of sex and gender transitions at any age. I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female, and they are assigned at birth.”
***
My friends, these scare tactics are dangerous. Recent analysis found a 70% increase in hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans between 2020 and 2021, as the surge of these anti-LGBTQ bills began. And that’s only counting hate crimes that get reported. The years 2020 and 2021 each set a new record for the number of trans people murdered in America.
**
The cruelest irony is that these Republican bills pretending to protect children are putting our most vulnerable children at greater risk.
LGBTQ kids are more than four times likelier than non-LGBTQ kids to attempt suicide, especially transgender young people.
Gender-affirming care reduces that risk. That is why it is life-saving.
“Don’t Say Gay” laws also strip away potentially life-saving support. A teacher who positively and respectfully discusses sexual orientation and gender identity won’t turn a straight kid gay. But such a discussion will make an LGBTQ student 23% less likely to attempt suicide.
The tragic truth is that “Don’t Say Gay” laws and bans on gender-affirming care are causing more young lives to be needlessly lost.
Laws that threaten to take transgender minors away from their families if they are receiving gender-affirming care will cause these young people even more trauma.
If they were really worried about children undergoing life-altering medical procedures, they wouldn’t pass abortion bans that force teens to give birth or risk back-alley procedures.
What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people.
This is how fascism takes root.
We need to see DeSantis’s bills and similar bills signed by Republican governors across the land for what they are — attempts to use bigotry and hate to elevate their political standing.
And we need to see this Republican attack on LGBTQ Americans for what it is: a threat to all of our human rights.
[My thanks to Allan Piper for work on a version of today’s letter.]
************************
Meanwhile, as Caleb Ecarma reports for Vanity Fair, Florida teachers have had enough:
“For the first time, I’ve actually started talking to my investment guy about retirement,” Michael Woods, a teacher who has spent decades working in exceptional-student education for public schools in South Florida, tells me. “I’m a 30-year veteran who showed up every day, hardly calls in sick, but now I don’t want to be a teacher in Florida.” Most troubling to Woods—a gay man who teaches science and biology courses—is the ballooning list of laws that police classroom material, discriminate against LGBTQ+ educators and students, and restrict sex education. “They’re all so vague,” he says of DeSantis’s new laws. “Even things that used to be easy like human reproduction [for ninth graders], I now have to check with my co-teacher and ask, ‘Is this okay? Are we still allowed to teach this?’”
On Wednesday, the governor rubber-stamped a batch of four bills restricting LGBTQ+ rights and expanding the Parental Rights in Education Act—or, as critics have dubbed it, the “Don’t Say Gay” law. The new measures, which will be enforced at public and charter schools, ban educators from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in pre-K through eighth grade, and place new, vague restrictions on sex education, including that such instructions “be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
This latest salvo was a bridge too far for many teachers, according to Rebecca Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the US. “I just talked to one teacher yesterday who is leaving and she said, ‘I can’t teach like this,’” Pringle tells me. “‘I can’t teach while worrying that they’re coming after my license, or I’m committing a felony.’ They’re leaving in protest.” Pringle says she has tried to convince teachers to stay in Florida, given the dearth of teachers in the state. But that discussion has been difficult to have, she says, with teachers who are facing death threats or harassment.
Case in point: One fifth-grade teacher in West Florida said this month that she was placed under investigation by the Florida Department of Education for showing her class Disney’s Strange World, a children’s movie that features an openly gay character. Jenna Barbee, the teacher at hand, said she played the film to give students a post-exam “brain break.” But when a local school board member learned of the showing, Barbee said, she was reported to state officials. Barbee told CNN that she had already submitted her resignation before the incident, in protest of the “politics and the fear of not being able to be who you are” in Florida public schools.
It appears that no educator has yet been prosecuted or charged under Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law or its legislation restricting books in schools. But as fears mount over their future implementation, parents are already witnessing the effects of shorthanded schools and overcrowded classrooms. “Last year, I saw several teachers leave, and we had substitutes for three, four months of the year,” says Reagan Miller, a parent in West Florida whose two children attend public school. “We had a teacher who taught advanced math at our middle school for years and years—he just left to go be a 911 operator,” she tells me, “which blows my mind, that becoming a 911 operator would be less stressful than being a teacher.”
. . . .
*****************************
My experience on the bench was that almost all the transgender individuals coming before me had attempted suicide on one or more occasions or expressed suicidal thoughts. To a person, they just wanted to be accepted, protected, and to live their own lives without harassment, interference, or fear. These are all things that today’s cowardly GOP “Brown Shirt Pols” would deny them.
The next generation is going to have to decide whether they want to live in a Nazi-inspired police “hate state” where individual freedoms are meaningless and cruelty, bullying, suppression, and betrayal are the norms. If not, then they had better get busy removing every GOP politico from every office — from local school boards and city councils to the Presidency.
How soon we forget the lessons of 1939! Perhaps that’s part of the GOP’s war on truth, education, and history!
The NAACP’s Board of Directors has issued a travel warning about Florida that accuses the state, and pointedly Gov. Ron DeSantis, of being “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”
“Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color,” the notice issued Saturday states.
The civil rights organization specifically accuses DeSantis, a possible 2024 Republican presidential candidate, of aggressively attempting to erase Black history and “restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools.”
. . . .
*****************
Read Nina’s complete report at the link.
“Gathering the dead after the Colfax massacre, published in Harper’s Weekly, May 10, 1873” — White Nationalist snowflakes like DeSantis feel diminished and threatened by the truth about American history and the role of race.
The “anti-woke agenda” touted by DeSantis is a very thinly disguised euphemism for “overtly racist!” That, decades after folks like Gov. George Wallace and Sen. Strom Thurmond unabashedly made hate, segregation, and racism the “centerpieces” of failed presidential bids, racists like DeSantis are openly campaigning on the same basic platform, and enacting it in their “mini-reichs,” should be deeply disturbing to younger generations of voters who will have to live with the stupidity, ignorance, cynicism, and hate promoted by these immoral GOP pols. It’s a race backwards and to the bottom that can only end in a complete catastrophe for our nation and the world!
Also remember: It all started with the dehumanization and false demonization of migrants. Many, including too many Dems, have been unwilling to stand up against it! That’s how the GOP’s “destroy America” agenda gains traction!
Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.
“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!
When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
Knightess of the Round Table — Somebody’s listening to our message! Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t! It would save lots of time, resources, and lives if they did!
JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the rea- sons explained below, we hold that §1252(d)(1) is not juris- dictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not re- quest discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.1
. . . .
***********************
Read the full opinion at the link.
So, why is a Dem Administration under AG Garland taking anti-immigrant positions that can’t even garner a single vote on the most far-right Supremes in recent history?
Incredibly, the DOJ made the absurdist argument that, in violation of the statute, an additional unnecessary layer of procedural BS should be inflicted on individuals already dealing with the trauma of a dysfunctional system running a 2 million plus backlog and a BIA with more than 80,000 un-adjudicated appeals at last count! Where’s the common sense? Where’s the competence? Where’s the “better government” that the Biden Administration promised?
Meanwhile, our Round Table continues to put our centuries of collective experience in due process, fundamental fairness, and practical problem solving to use! The Biden Administration might not be paying attention. But, many others, including Article III Judges, are taking advantage and listening.
Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:
Hi all,
I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.
Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.
Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.
Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”
I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.
While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.
Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.
CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.
Thanks,
Pooja
Deirdre Stradone Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYKelly Becker-Smith Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYAmalia Chiapperino Sanctuary for Families NY
********************
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”
Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!
Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.
These are NOT “one offs!”No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”
That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.
The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.
It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.
That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!
Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!
DUE PROCESS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANY MORE: WEAPONIZED IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS
By
Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
“Immigration 101”
Renaissance Institute
Notre Dame University of Maryland in Baltimore
April 18, 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning. Thank you so much for inviting me, and for coming out on this beautiful Spring day. It’s an honor to be here.
Today, I’m going to tell you the sad story of how our Immigration Courts, housed in an agency called the Executive Office for Immigration Review (acronym “EOIR” for you “Winnie The Pooh” fans) within the U.S. Department of Justice, went from being the “Jewel in the Crown” to becoming “America’s Star Chambers,” where due process and human dignity are trampled daily. I will intertwine EOIR’s saga with my own career. Because, in many ways, my history and EOIR’s are the same. But, there’s a larger story in here that I hope you will pick up and that will tie together much of what you will learn in class.
Now, this is when I used to give my comprehensive disclaimer providing “plausible deniability” for everyone in the Immigration Court System if I happened to say anything inconvenient or controversial. But, now that I’m retired, we can skip that part.
However, I do want to hold Professor Rabben, the Renaissance Institute, the University, your faculty, trustees, you, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my remarks which are solely my own views. No party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as I see and have lived it for five decades.
Also, because today is Tuesday, and you are such a great audience, I’m giving you my famous, industry-best, absolute, unconditional, money-back guarantee that this talk will be completely free from computer-generated slides, power points, or any other type of distracting modern technology that might interfere with your total comprehension or listening enjoyment. In other words, I am your “power point.”
II. CAREER SUMMARY
I graduated in 1970 from Lawrence University a small liberal arts college in Appleton, Wisconsin, where I majored in history. My broad liberal arts education and the intensive writing and intellectual dialogue involved were the best possible preparation for all that followed.
I then attended the University of Wisconsin School of Law in Madison, Wisconsin, graduating in 1973. Go Badgers!
I began my legal career in 1973 as an Attorney Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Admittedly, however, the BIA’s Executive Assistant culled my resume from the “Honors Program reject pile.”
At that time, before the creation of the Executive Office for Immigration Review – “EOIR” — the Board had only five members and nine staff attorneys, as compared to today’s cast of thousands. Among other things, I worked on the famous, or infamous, John Lennon case, which eventually was reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.[1]
The Chairman of the BIA at that time was the legendary “immigration guru” Maurice A. “Maury” Roberts. Chairman Roberts took me under this wing and shared his love of immigration law, his focus on sound scholarship, his affinity for clear, effective legal writing, and his humane sense of fairness and justice for the individuals coming before the BIA. A sense, I might add, that is conspicuously absent from today’s EOIR.
In 1976, I moved to the Office of General Counsel at the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). There, I worked for another legendary figure in immigration law, then General Counsel Sam Bernsen. Sam was a first-generation immigrant who started his career as a 17-year-old messenger at Ellis Island and worked his way to the top of the Civil Service ranks. Perhaps not incidentally, he was also a good friend of Chairman Roberts.
At that time, the Office of General Counsel was very small, with a staff of only three attorneys in addition to the General Counsel and his Deputy, another mentor and immigration guru, Ralph Farb. At one time, all three of us on the staff sat in the same office!
In 1978, Ralph was appointed to the BIA, and I succeeded him as Deputy General Counsel. I also served as the Acting General Counsel for several very lengthy periods in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.
Not long after I arrived, the General Counsel position became political. The incoming Carter Administration encouraged Sam to retire, and he went on to become a name and Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of the powerhouse immigration boutique Fragomen, Del Rey, and Bernsen. He was replaced by my good friend and former colleague, the late Judge David Crosland, who selected me as his Deputy. Dave was also the Acting Commissioner of Immigration during the second half of the Carter Administration, one of the periods when I was the Acting General Counsel.
The third General Counsel that I served under, during the Reagan Administration, was one of my most “unforgettable characters:” the late, great Maurice C. “Mike” Inman, Jr. He was known, not always affectionately, as “Iron Mike.” His management style was something of a cross between the famous coach of the Green Bay Packers, Vince Lombardi, and the fictional Mafia chieftain, Don Corleone.
Although we were totally different personalities, Mike and I made a good team, and we accomplished amazing things. It was more or less a “good cop, bad cop” routine, and I’ll let you guess who played which role.
Among other things, I worked on the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Cuban Boatlift, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), the creation of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”), and establishing what has evolved into the modern Chief Counsel system at Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
I also worked on the creation of EOIR in 1983, which combined the Immigration Courts, which had previously been part of the INS, with the BIA to improve judicial independence. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, the leadership and impetus for getting the Immigration Judges into a separate organization came from Mike and the late Al Nelson, who was then the Commissioner of Immigration. Prosecutors by position and litigators by trade, they saw the inherent conflicts and overall undesirability, from a due process and credibility standpoint, of having immigration enforcement and impartial court adjudication in the same division.
I find it disturbing that officials at today’s DOJ have actually recreated and aggravated many of the problems and glaring conflicts of interest that EOIR originally was created to overcome. Indeed, as I will discuss later, they have allowed the Immigration Courts to become “weaponized” as a tool of immigration enforcement.
For example, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions unethically and improperly referred to supposedly fair and impartial Immigration Judges as “in partnership” with DHS enforcement. A.G. Garland has done little to dispel this notion.
By the time I left in 1987, the General Counsel’s Office, largely as a result of the enactment of IRCA and new employer sanctions provisions, had dozens of attorneys, organized into divisions, and approximately 600 attorneys in the field program, the vast majority of whom had been hired during my tenure.
In 1987, I resigned from INS and joined Jones Day’s DC Office, a job that I got largely because of my wife Cathy and her “old girl network.” I eventually became a partner specializing in business immigration, multinational executives, and religious workers. Among my major legislative projects on behalf of our clients were the special religious worker provisions added to the law by the Immigration Act of 1990 and the “Special Immigrant Juvenile” provisions of the INA.
Following my time at Jones Day, I succeeded my former boss and mentor Sam Bernsen as the Managing Partner of the DC Office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen, the leading national immigration boutique, where I continued to concentrate on business immigration. Immigration is a small community; you need to be nice to everyone because you keep running into the same folks over and over again in your career. While at Fragomen, I also assisted the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) on a number of projects and was an asylum adviser to the Lawyers’ Committee on Human Rights, now known as Human Rights First.
In 1995, then Attorney General Janet Reno appointed me Chairman of the BIA. Not surprisingly, the late Janet Reno was my favorite among all of the Attorneys General I worked under. I felt that she supported me personally, and she supported the concept of an independent judiciary, even though she didn’t always agree with our decisions and vice versa.
She was the only Attorney General who consistently came to our Investitures and Immigration Judge Conferences in person and mixed and mingled with the group. She had a saying “equal justice for all” that she worked into almost all of her speeches, and which I found quite inspirational.
She was also hands-down the funniest former Attorney General to appear on “Saturday Night Live,” doing her famous “Janet Reno Dance Party” routine with Will Farrell immediately following the end of her lengthy tenure at the DOJ. Can you imagine Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, or Merrick Garland making live appearances on SNL, and laughing at themselves. Not likely!
Among other things, as Chair, I oversaw an expansion of the Board from the historical five members to more than 20 members, a more open selection system that gave some outside experts a chance to serve as appellate judges on the Board, the creation of a supervisory structure for the expanding staff, the establishment of a unified Clerk’s Office to process appeals, implementation of a true judicial format for published opinions, institution of bar coding for the tens of thousands of files, the establishment of a pro bono program to assist unrepresented respondents on appeal, the founding of the Virtual Law Library, electronic en banc voting and e-distribution of decisions to Immigration Judges, and the publication of the first BIA Practice Manual, which actually won a “Plain Language Award” from then Vice President Gore.
I also wrote the majority opinion in my favorite case, Matter of Kasinga, establishing for the first time that the practice of female genital mutilation (“FGM”) is “persecution” for asylum purposes.[2] The “losing” attorney in that case was none other than my good friend, then INS General Counsel David A. Martin, a famous emeritus immigration professor at University of Virginia Law, who personally argued before the Board.
In reality, however, by nominally “losing” the case, David actually won the war for both of us, and more important, for the cause of suffering women throughout the world. We really were on the same side in Kasinga — the side of protecting vulnerable women.
During my tenure as Chairman, then Chief Immigration Judge (now BIA Judge) Michael J. Creppy and I were founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”). This organization, today headquartered in The Hague, promotes open dialogue and exchange of information among judges from many different countries adjudicating claims under the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
In 2001, under pressure from the incoming Bush Administration and new Attorney General John
Ashcroft, I stepped down as BIA Chairman, but remained as a Board Member until April 2003. At that time, Ashcroft, who was not a fan of my opinions, invited me to vacate the Board and finish my career at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I remained until my retirement on June 30, 2016.
So, I’m one of the few ever to become an Immigration Judge without applying for the job. Or, maybe my opinions, particularly the dissents, were my application and I just didn’t recognize it at the time. But, it turned out to be a great fit, and I truly enjoyed my time at the Arlington Court.
I have also taught at George Mason School of Law and at Georgetown Law where I am still an Adjunct Professor.
As a sitting judge, I encouraged meticulous preparation and advance consultation with the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel to stipulate or otherwise narrow issues. There currently are approximately two million pending cases in Immigration Court, a backlog that grows every day. Because of this overwhelming workload, efficiency and focusing on the disputed issues in court are particularly critical.
III. THE DUE PROCESS VISION
Now, let’s move on to the other topics: First, vision. The “EOIR Vision” once was: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” In one of my prior incarnations, I was part of the group that developed that now abandoned and disrespected vision statement. Perhaps not surprisingly given the timing, that vision echoed the late Janet Reno’s “equal justice for all” theme.
Sadly, the Immigration Court System has moved ever further away from that due process vision. Instead, years of neglect, misunderstanding, mismanagement, and misguided priorities imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice have created judicial chaos with an expanding backlog now at an astounding two million cases, continuing to grow, with no clear plan for resolving them in the foreseeable future. Indeed, former AG Sessions actually maliciously and intentionally tried to add a potential 300,000 previously closed cases to those already on the active docket.
There are now more pending cases in Immigration Court than in the entire U.S. District Court System. Notwithstanding the hiring of hundreds of new judges by the past two Administrations, most in the Trump Administration from the ranks of Government prosecutors, the backlog continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
The Government has added hundreds of thousands, of new cases to the Immigration Court docket, again without any transparent plan for completing those already pending cases consistent with due process and fairness. They have done this despite efforts by the Biden Administration to re-establish sensible enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion that were trashed by the Trump Administration.
Even under Attorney General Garland, inexcusably, the “flavor of the day” is haphazardly advanced before pending cases which, in turn, are “orbited” to the end of the years long line. This results in what I call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR, EOIR-style.”
Notably, and most troubling, the only things that aren’t “priorities” for any Administration are fairness and due process in the immigration hearing process which have clearly been “thrown from the train” as the deportation express hurtles down the track. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution – has become “the enemy” in today’s disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Nobody has been hit harder by this preventable disaster than asylum seekers, particularly scared women and children fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle of Central America. In Immigration Court, notwithstanding the life-or-death issues at stake, unlike criminal court there is no right to an appointed lawyer.
Individuals who can’t afford a lawyer must rely on practicing lawyers who donate their time or on nonprofit community organizations to find free or low-cost legal representation. Although the Government stubbornly resists the notion that all asylum seekers should be represented, studies show that represented asylum seekers are at least five times more likely to succeed than those who must represent themselves. For recently arrived women with children, the success differential is an astounding fourteen times![3]
Although the Biden Administration promised to do better, they actually are using somewhat improved technology to make matters worse for lawyers, mindlessly overbooking cases without advance consultation with counsel — sometimes simultaneously scheduling cases for the same attorney in different cities at the same time.
An Assistant Chief Judge for Training in the Obama Administration infamously claimed that he could teach immigration law to unrepresented toddlers appearing in Immigration Court. Issues concerning representation of so-called “vulnerable populations” continue to haunt our Court System. Even with Clinics and Non-Governmental Organizations pitching in, there simply are not enough free or low-cost lawyers available to handle the overwhelming need.
To make matters worse, Administrations of both parties engage in a number of legally questionable and morally reprehensible “gimmicks” and “schemes” to keep asylum applicants at the Southern Border from getting fair hearings in Immigration Court.
Whether it’s “dedicated dockets,” Remain in Mexico, abusive use of Title 42, family detention, child separation, invented “bars” to asylum, or forcing applicants stranded in dangerous conditions in Mexico to use failing technology to schedule appointments, the objective is to prevent asylum applicants from receiving due process. Instead, they are often wrongfully “orbited” back to Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador.
These are among the world’s most dangerous countries, some basically without functional governing systems. Once there, many suffer kidnapping, extortion, rape, torture, and even death at the hands of the same forces from which they originally fled.
It’s a total and intentional perversion of asylum law and American values. Worst of all, complicit Article III Courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, regularly “tank” in their duties to protect asylum applicants’ legal and constitutional rights. Instead, they “go along to get along” or pretend not to see or understand the grotesque human tragedy that they have enabled.
Customs and Border Protection officials brag about how limiting or eliminating asylum protections helps solve “the problem” and “reduce the numbers” at our Southern Border. In their view, refugees seeking legal protections under our laws and international conventions are a “problem” and human lives are merely “numbers” to be “reduced.”
It’s part of a concerted effort to “dehumanize the other” and convert them to “non-persons” under the law. I call this “Dred Scottification” after the infamous pre-Civil War Supreme Court case that declared that Blacks were not “persons” under our Constitution, although I hardly originated this term.
Notwithstanding today’s legal, Constitutional, and human rights disaster, I, for one, still believe that with proper enlightened leadership and some guts the “EOIR vision” could be fulfilled.
IV. THE ROLE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
Changing subjects, to the role of the Immigration Judge: What’s it like to be an Immigration Judge? As an Immigration Judge, I was an administrative judge. I was not part of the Judicial Branch established under Article III of the Constitution.
The Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch, appointed me, and my authority was subject to her regulations. I might add that I also served at her pleasure, something that GOP Administrations “get,” but ineffectual Democratic Administrations, not so much. And, that has lots to do with the abysmal state of justice in the Immigration Courts under Garland.
We should all be concerned that the U.S. Immigration Court system, between 2017 and 2021, was totally under the control of Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who consistently took negative views of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Both failed to recognize the many essential, positive contributions that immigrants make to our country. They were also unfailingly biased against migrants in Immigration Court and their attorneys, in their negative and unethical “precedents,” and in prosecutor-friendly, immigration experience light, criteria for appointing new Immigration Judges and Appellate Judges at the BIA.
Indeed, in February 2020, a group of more than 2,500 former DOJ officials from Administrations of both parties, including me and many of my colleagues from the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, took the extraordinary step of publicly calling on Barr to resign for corruption and compromising the independent role of the DOJ.[6] Among other things, we “strongly condemn[ed] President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.” Certainly, that was reflected in his mishandling of the Immigration Courts and “weaponizing” them against migrants and their lawyers
The late Judge Terence T. Evans of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals offered one of the best descriptions of what it’s like to be an Immigration Judge:
Because 100 percent of asylum petitioners want to stay in this country, but less than 100 percent are entitled to asylum, an immigration judge must be alert to the fact that some petitioners will embellish their claims to increase their chances of success. On the other hand, an immigration judge must be sensitive to the suffering and fears of petitioners who are genuinely entitled to asylum in this country. A healthy balance of sympathy and skepticism is a job requirement for a good immigration judge. Attaining that balance is what makes the job of an immigration judge, in my view, excruciatingly difficult.[5]
My good friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, who is the past President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, offers a somewhat pithier description: “[I]mmigration judges often feel asylum hearings are ‘like holding death penalty cases in traffic court.’”[7]
An actual practitioner before today’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was even blunter in an interview appearing in Mother Jones, one of my favorite scholarly publications: “An [expletive deleted] disaster that is designed to fail.”[7]
Certainly, balance, Due Process, and fundamental fairness have been sacrificed in today’s Immigration Courts in favor of expediency and “weaponizing” the Immigration Courts as tools of DHS enforcement. In other words, they are now structured to be little more than a whistle-stop on the deportation express as the complicit Article IIIs look on.
Barr even took the extreme, unethical, step of moving to “decertify” the Immigration Judges union, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), of which, for full disclosure, I am a retired member. Actually, I believe my appearance here today was arranged through Linda contacting the NAIJ!
One of the keys to the Immigration Judge’s job is supposed to be issuing scholarly, practical, well-written opinions in the most difficult cases. That ties directly into the job of the Immigration Court’s Judicial Law Clerks (“JLCs”) assisted by legal interns from local law schools. Obviously, however, quality and care took a back seat to “productivity” under the Trump Administration’s program of “dumbing down” the Immigration Courts — not by any means effectively countermanded under Garland. Indeed, the already-strained ratio of Immigration Judges to judicial law clerks has gotten much worse over the past few years.
V. RECLAIMING THE VISION
Our Immigration Courts are going through an existential crisis that threatens the very foundations of our American Justice System. Earlier, I told you about my dismay that the noble due process vision of our Immigration Courts has been derailed and trashed. What can be done to re-establish it?
First, and foremost, the Immigration Courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. We must end the improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers.
Ultimately, that will take an independent Article I Immigration Court, which has been supported by groups such as the ABA, the FBA, and the NAIJ, and was introduced in the last Congress by Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).
Indeed, in February 2020, a hearing on “The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts” took place before Chair Lofgren’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. Our 50+ strong “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” filed a written statement in support of Due Process and creation of an independent, Article I Court.
You can find it on my blog “Immigrationcourtside.com,” which, of course, I highly recommend for anyone trying to understand what’s really happening in immigration these days.[8] We also joined 53 other distinguished organizations and NGOs in writing to Congress urging them to establish an independent Immigration Court.[9]
But, Article I is still a future dream. In the meantime, there is no excuse for Garland’s failure to make needed personnel, structural, and “cultural” changes at EOIR to restore due process.
Second, there must be radical structural changes so that the Immigration Courts are organized and run like a real court system, not a highly bureaucratic, headquarters bloated, enforcement agency. This means that sitting Immigration Judges, like in all other court systems, must control their dockets.
We must end the practice of having often clueless administrators in Falls Church and political bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., none of whom are sitting judges responsible for daily court hearings, manipulate and rearrange local dockets in an attempt to achieve policy goals unrelated to fairness and due process for individuals coming before the Immigration Courts.
Additionally, the judicial hiring process over the past 22 years has failed to produce the necessary balance because judicial selectees from private sector backgrounds – particularly those with expertise in asylum and refugee law –have been so few and far between. Indeed, during the Obama Administration nearly 90% of the judicial appointments were from Government backgrounds.
In the Trump Administration, nearly 100% of judicial appointments by Attorney General Barr came from prosecutorial or other public sector backgrounds. A number of these conspicuously lacked expertise in immigration and human rights laws!
Garland has done better in bringing in expert practical scholars and even getting rid of a few of the most horribly unqualified judges. But, in an out-of-control system with more than 600 judges, and growing, it’s going to take more than this “nibbling around the edges” to restore due process.
Third, there must be a new administrative organization to serve the courts, much like the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Currently, the unwieldy hiring process, inadequate courtroom space planning and acquisition, and unreliable, often-outdated technology are simply not up to the needs of a rapidly expanding court system.
EOIR basically has “institutionalized worst practices.” This includes limiting legitimate continuances and placing judges under “performance plans” designed to hustle cases through the system, with insufficient quality control, while producing “assembly line injustice.”
Fourth, I would repeal all of the so-called “Ashcroft & Barr reforms” at the BIA and put the BIA back on track to being a real appellate court, as the “Appellate Division” of a new independent Immigration Court. A properly comprised and well-functioning Appellate Division should transparently debate and decide important, potentially controversial, issues, publishing dissenting opinions when appropriate.
All Appellate Judges should be required to vote and take a public position on all important precedent decisions. The Appellate Division must also “rein in,” rather than encourage and enable, those Immigration Courts with asylum grant rates so incredibly low as to make it clear that the generous dictates of the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca[9] and the BIA itself in Mogharrabi[10] are not being followed.
Well over a decade has passed since Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Shrag, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales published their seminal work Refugee Roulette, documenting the large disparities among Immigration Judges in asylum grant rates.[11] The BIA, the only body that can effectively establish and enforce due process within the Immigration Court system, has not adequately addressed this situation.
Indeed, among the still-serving Barr appointments to the BIA are Immigration Judges who deny asylum nearly 100% of the time and are the subject of complaints from the private bar and NGOs about bias, rudeness, and other unprofessional behavior. In other words, Barr implemented “worst practices and policies” at the BIA and in the Immigration Courts in an attempt to “snuff out” every remnant of fundamental fairness and due process for migrants. He and Sessions particularly targeted the most vulnerable asylum seekers and their families for unfair treatment.
Inexplicably, and outrageously, Garland has failed to “clean house” and bring in the necessary qualified experts to reshape the Immigration Courts in a due process image. In particular, Trump holdovers contain due to dominate the BIA and turn out lousy, anti-immigrant, anti-due process decisions, many of which are slammed by the Circuit Courts on review.
This is hardly “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” The sharp drop-off in Immigration Court asylum grant rates during the Trump Administration was impossible to justify in light of the generous standard for well-founded fear established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA in Mogharrabi, the regulatory presumption of future fear arising out of past persecution that applies in many asylum cases,[14] and the simple fact that there has been no worldwide diminution in the conditions causing refugees to flee. Indeed, they have gotten worse, in many cases.
The BIA’s chronic inability or unwillingness to aggressively stand up for the due process rights of asylum seekers and to enforce the fair and generous standards required by American law have robbed our Immigration Court System of credibility and public support, as well as ruined the lives of many who were denied protection that should have been granted. We need an Appellate Division that functions like a Federal Appellate Court and whose overriding mission is to ensure that the due process vision of the Immigration Courts becomes a reality rather than a cruel, intentionally unfulfilled promise.
Fifth, and finally, the Immigration Courts need better public service now! Without it, the courts are condemned to “files in the aisles,” misplaced filings, lost exhibits, and exorbitant courier charges. The public receives a level of service disturbingly below that of any other major court system.
That gives the Immigration Courts an “amateur night at the Bijou” aura totally inconsistent with the dignity of the process and the critical importance of the mission. Yet, after two decades of largely wasted effort, EOIR has failed to produce and implement a coherent, professional, user friendly court management system.
VI. GETTING INVOLVED
Bleak as this picture is, there is some good news. There are hundreds of dedicated and courageous lawyers out there who are former JLCs, interns, my former students, and those who have practiced before the Immigration Courts.
They form the nucleus what I call the “New Due Process Army!” You can be members, and I hope you will.
Thanks to an innovative new online program called VIISTA Villanova, developed by my friend Professor Michele Pistone, retirees who are not lawyers can train to become accredited representatives of recognized nonprofit organizations and actually represent asylum seekers in Immigration Court. Check it out on the internet.
VII. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in the process of describing my career, I have introduced you to one of America’s largest and most important, yet least understood and appreciated, court systems: The United States Immigration Court. Right now, it is, inexcusably, clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt America’s worst and most dysfunctional court system.
I have shared with you that court’s once-noble due process vision and how it has been viciously and cruelly trampled, first to advance a xenophobic, White Nationalist Qrestrictionist agenda and then because Garland has failed to do his duty.
I have also shared with you my ideas for effective court reform that would restore and elevate the due process vision.
My friends, both our Immigration Courts and our democratic republic are in a grave existential crisis. There are powerful and well-organized forces with a very dark, exclusive vision of America’s future: one that reverses generations of human progress and knowledge and actively promotes intolerance, misinformation, dehumanization, and deconstruction of our democratic institutions and fundamental human values.
It’s an intentionally “whitewashed” version of American history. One that denies the ingenuity, creativity, and forced labor of generations of African Americans who literally built our country! It disregards the courage, tenacity, skill, and strength of Asian Americans who built our Transcontinental Railroad and literally brought our nation together. And, of course, it dismisses the legions of Hispanic Americans who have been “making America great” since before “America was America,” with their culture, hard work, determination, and commitment to the “real” American dream, not the “whitewashed” version.
The future envisioned by these dark forces “x’es out” some of you in this room. Don’t let their darkness and willful ignorance be your future and that of generations to come.
Look around you at the real history and the real America. The future is ours! Don’t let the forces of darkness and a “past that never was” deny our destiny!
Now is the time to take a stand for Due Process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, and human decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to make equal justice under law and the constitutional and human rights of everyone a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise! Due process forever!
Thanks again for inviting me and for listening.
(04/19/23)
[1] Matter of Lennon, 15 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1974), rev’d Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975).
[2] Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).
[4] “Immigration Director Calls for Overhaul of Broken System,” NBC Bay Area News, May 27, 2015, available online.
[5] Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2004) (Evans, J., concurring). [6] Hon. Thomas G. Snow, “The gut-wrenching life of an immigration judge,” USA Today, Dec. 12, 2106, available online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/12/immigration-judge-gut-wrenching-decisions-column/95308118/
[7] Julia Preston, “Lawyers Back Creating New Immigration Courts,” NY Times, Feb. 6, 2010.
[15] See, e.g., Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) (denial of due process where IJ tried to bar the testimony of minor respondent by disqualifying him as an expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence). While the BIA finally stepped in with this precedent, the behavior of this Judge shows a system where some Judges have abandoned any discernable concept of “guaranteeing fairness and due process.” The BIA’s “permissive” attitude toward Judges who consistently deny nearly all asylum applications has allowed this to happen. Indeed the Washington Post recently carried a poignant story of a young immigration lawyer who was driven out of the practice by the negative attitudes and treatment by the Immigration Judges at the Atlanta Immigration Court. Harlan, Chico, “In an Immigration Court that nearly always says no, a lawyer’s spirit is broken,” Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2016, available online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-an-immigration-court-that-nearly-always-says-no-a-lawyers-spirit-is-broken/2016/10/11/05f43a8e-8eee-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html
How does this live up to the EOIR Vision of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Does this represent the best that American justice has to offer?
We need to keep challenging this mockery of justice from all angles until the system changes! Keep raising the EOIR farce with Dems at all levels — let them know that due process at EOIR is a “front burner” issue they can’t keep sweeping under the rug!
Help groups that are assisting individuals stuck in this bureaucratically-created “Hell on Earth.” The EOIR system “feeds” on (picks on) the unrepresented, uninformed, traumatized, and desperate! Help people get effective representation, win cases, save their lives, and bring systemic attention to the gross injustices being inflicted on a daily basis by this dysfunctional system!
The “powers that be” at DOJ and the White House have little interest in leading and institutionalizing due process and excellence in judging at EOIR. But, neither are they positioned to prevent it from taking hold and growing on its own. That’s particularly true because Immigration Judges with practical expertise, courtroom skills, and a commitment to enforcing and vindicating individual rights ultimately “move” dockets more efficiently, motivate others to work together toward the ends of justice, and create fewer problems and embarrassments.
Even the BIA can’t screw up cases they don’t get! At some point, even inept and largely tone-deaf Dem politicos and their bureaucratic minions start “warming” to proven solutions rather than recreating failures and flailing away with bone-headed “deterrence” gimmicks.
The BIA might eschew precedents favorable to individuals. But, thanks to litigation against EOIR by the NY Legal Assistance Group, unpublished decisions are more widely available now on the internet. Even at the IJ level, advocacy organizations have established online networks and banks of good decisions by Immigration Judges granting relief.
These recognize and credit outstanding, exemplary, courageous judicial performance in a way that EOIR never does. Perhaps more importantly, these “unheralded victories” provide “road maps” and inspire others! Also, every concrete example of how good judging and good lawyering, on both sides, can work at EOIR serves as a condemnation and rebuke of the Administration’s lack of concern about due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR.
While the picture is undoubtedly ugly, we must keep “painting it” — with vivid colors — until complacent folks in the power structure (particularly tone-deaf Dems) can no longer look away, cover their eyes and ears, and deny the truth about the “third world” system they are disingenuously passing off as American “justice.”
The message is straightforward: Due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices work! For everyone! It’s past time for Garland and the rest of this Administration to “get their collective heads out of the sand” and start heeding and acting decisively on that truth!
Bury your head in the sand Sander van der Wel from Netherlands Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 It’s way past time for AG Merrick Garland and Biden politicos to change this highly ineffective approach to the EOIR due process disaster!
Holy card ( 1899 ) showing an illustration to the Gospel of Matthew 25, 34-36 – rear side of an obituary. Wolfgang Sauber Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
MATTHEW AT THE BORDER: ACTING ON THE MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 25
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Westminster Presbyterian Men’s Breakfast
April 14, 2023
I. INTRODUCTION: THE MESSAGE OF MATTHEW 25
Welcome. Thank you for inviting me and for coming out this morning.
Of course, I want to hold my friend and fellow “Badger” Dudley, the Men’s Group, honored guests, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever harmless for my remarks this morning. While I have borrowed liberally from the ideas and inspirations of others, I take sole responsibility for the views expressed in my presentation.
I don’t usually start my talks with a Biblical quote. But, since this is a church men’s breakfast, we are in the holy season, and my topic is integrally tied to Judeo-Christian values, I want to read from Matthew 25, verses 34-46:
34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?
38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing?
39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’
40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’
45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
II. OVERVIEW
The last time I was with you, five years ago, I described the mess and rampant unfairness in our immigration system. I’d like to say that those times are behind us: That we have restored the rule of law, enhanced due process, and acted, as a nation, in a manner that showed adherence to those passages from Matthew.
But, unfortunately, I can’t do that. Not yet! Despite many promises to fix the mistakes of the past and to do better in the future, and a few successes, the current Administration has, in my view, disturbingly failed to deliver on our obligation to treat “the stranger” and “the other” — in other words, some of “the least of these” — fairly and with human dignity. Nowhere is this more harmful, discouraging, and threatening to both human life and our democracy than at our borders.
The most vulnerable among us, asylum seekers, who ask for little other than to be treated fairly and humanely under our laws, are still being victimized by dysfunctional bureaucracies more intent on deterring and rejecting than on protecting!
I’m going to tell you truths that some find uncomfortable; briefly summarize our current and proposed “built to fail system” at the borders; and tell your why it doesn’t have to be this way!
I’m going to share with you some ideas from legal and humanitarian experts on how our nation could do a far better job for ourselves and for refugees just by more creatively, boldly, and courageously exercising authorities under existing law. In other words how we as a nation could reflect on Jesus’s parable in Matthew and make it a reality.
III. UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
Let me tell you a few truths that the “false prophets” find uncomfortable.
First, there is an internationally recognized right to seek asylum. Our law states that any person “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including [someone] who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such [person’s] status, may apply for asylum.” [INA, 208(a)].
Second, according to the 5th Amendment to our Constitution, “no person . . . shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Note that it says “person,” not citizen or “lawfully present non-citizen.”
Third, according to our Supreme Court, asylum laws are to be applied generously, so that even those with just a 10% chance of suffering persecution could qualify. [INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca]. In other words, according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative tribunal in immigration where I once served as an appellate judge and Chair, asylum can be granted “even where [the likelihood of persecution] is significantly less than clearly probable.”[Matter of Mogharrabi].
Additionally, the Handbook of the United Nations, whose Refugee Convention we adopted and which forms the basis for our refugee and asylum laws, says that because of the traumatic situation of refugees and the understandable difficulty they have in gathering and presenting “evidence,” refugees and asylum seekers should be given “the benefit of the doubt” in adjudications.
Fourth, by definition, refugee situations are driven by a variety of life-threatening forces occurring in sending countries, most of them outside our immediate control. Therefore, attempts to use harsh applications of our laws, intentionally “user-unfriendly” procedures, and punishment such as prosecution, imprisonment in life-threatening conditions, and even family separation as “deterrents” are ultimately doomed to failure. I’ve personally watched this “play out” during my five decade career in immigration.
Friends, human migration is a reality as old as humanity itself. It existed long before the evolution of the “nation state” and will continue as long as there is human life on this earth.
Consequently, the idea of some that we can unilaterally cut off or end human migration solely by our own cruel, repressive, and unfair actions is absurd. As I always say, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration.”
Fifth, America needs immigrants. Refugees and asylees are part of our legal immigration system. They should be treated as such and welcomed, rather than being dehumanized and viewed as a “loophole,” a “threat,” or“invaders.”
Unhappily, in my view, most of our past and current policies toward refugees and asylum seekers run afoul of these fundamental truths. Worse still, legislators, policy makers from both parties, and even Federal Judges have been willing to run roughshod over these fundamental principles when they believe it is personally, politically, financially, or even professionally expedient.
IV.CURRENT BORDER POLICIES
Currently, our border asylum policies, largely “holdovers” from the Trump Administration, are overwhelmingly weighted toward improper, and ultimately futile, “deterrence.” This reflects deeply imbedded nativist, often racist, views by those holding power.
Our Government currently claims that our border is “closed” to legal asylum seekers, as it has been since March 2020. Under a vestige of Trump-era policy, known as Title 42, the legal processing of asylum applicants and their admission has been suspended based on a transparently pretextual, manufactured claim of necessity to protect America from COVID.
This allows many individuals to be excluded from the U.S. without any legal process and without having a chance to make a claim for asylum or other legal protection. Others are allowed to come into the U.S. under highly discretionary — most would say arbitrary — opaque “exceptions” to Title 42 that are within the sole discretion or DHS officials without any meaningful review.
The result is a mess. Some refugees are returned to Mexico or their home countries where they are subject to abuse, extortion,exploitation, crime, torture, and sometimes death.
Others, who might or might not be refugees, are allowed into the U.S., often with inadequate screening and without clear instructions as to what they are to do next. Because the Biden Administration didn’t establish any uniform nationwide resettlement system for those allowed in, they have been subject to cruel political stunts.
One of the most well-publicized of these has been the so-called “voluntary relocation” of individuals from the border by the governors of Texas, Florida, and, until the recent election, Arizona. They are sent by these governors, without coordination or notice, to supposedly “liberal” cities such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, D.C., in the calculated hopes of overwhelming community nonprofit organizations, creating chaos, and thereby causing a “backlash” against asylum seekers and the Administration.
V. BIDEN’S LARGELY MISGUIDED PROPOSALS
The Biden Administration has made some rather halfhearted efforts to end Title 42. To date, these have been blocked by right-wing Federal Judges, mostly Trump appointees.
But, it now appears that with the overall “COVID emergency” ended by President Biden, Title 42 will also end on May 11, barring further obstructionist litigation.
Many of us had hoped that after more than two-years to work on regularizing and normalizing asylum processing, the Biden Administration would have a “ready to implement” plan for restoring order, fundamental fairness, and due process to asylum adjudication.
But, sadly, this is not the case. The Biden Administration has actually proposed what many of us consider to be “gimmick regulations” to take effect upon the expiration of Title 42. These proposals actually build upon, and in some cases expand, unfair, restrictive, ineffective policies used by the Trump Administration to “deter” asylum seekers.
Obviously, many experts have opposed these measures. A group of which I am a member, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, filed an official comment in opposition to these proposals.
In it, we stated:
[T]he proposed rule exceeds the agencies’ authority by seeking to create a ban on asylum that contradicts Congressional intent and international law. As former Immigration Judges, we can confidently predict that the rule would result in individuals being erroneously deported even where they face a genuine threat of persecution or torture. We urge that the rule be withdrawn in its entirety.
Notably, approximately 33,000 individuals and organizations joined us in submitting comments in opposition to these regulations. Among these is the union representing the DHS Asylum Officers who claim, with justification, that applying these proposed provisions would require them to violate their oath to uphold the law.
At the heart of the Administration’s proposed changes is a new bar for those who apply for asylum other than at a port of entry and who can’t show that they have applied and been denied asylum in a country they “transited” on the way to the U.S.
Absurdly, this includes some of the most dangerous countries in the world, without well-functioning, fair asylum systems: Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, being among those often transited.
This is also a rather obvious contradiction of the statutory command I read earlier that individuals can apply for asylum regardless of whether they arrive at a port of entry.
While there are some “emergency exceptions” to these new bars, they are narrow and will be almost impossible for individuals who have made the long, difficult, and dangerous journey to establish.
The proposal also improperly raises the statutory standards for preliminary screening of these individuals by Asylum Officers from “credible fear” to “reasonable fear.” This improperly weaponizes “gatekeepers” to block access to the asylum adjudication system.
Another “centerpiece” of the proposal is to require all asylum applicants arriving at ports of entry to schedule in advance an appointment for asylum screening using a new app called “CBP One.” Unfortunately, according to those actually at the border with asylum seekers, CBP One is “not quite ready for prime time.” It’s plagued by technical glitches, including disconnection, inability to schedule appointments for all family members, failure of the “facial recognition” software with some ethnic groups, and issues of usable wi-fi in Mexico and cell phone access among some applicants.
As Senator Cory Booker (D) of New Jersey stated following a recent trip to the border:
“Even if the CBP One app [were] as efficient, user friendly, fair, and inclusive as possible – which I hope one day it will be – it would still be inherently discriminatory.”
Additionally, the “appointments” currently available for asylum seekers are woefully inadequate and often are exhausted shortly after being posted, leaving legal asylum seekers frustrated and stranded in deplorable conditions near the Mexican border.
The Administration has recognized the need to encourage applications for refugee status in or near the countries from which refugees flee. But, instead of providing for more robust refugee admissions, the Administration has circumvented existing refugee laws by creating “special programs” for nationals of five countries to apply for temporary “parole into the U.S.”
This process is restricted to only five countries: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, and Ukraine. The numbers of paroles are limited, and the criteria do not necessarily relate to refugee qualifications, relying heavily on the ability to obtain a U.S. sponsor in advance.
While this undoubtedly benefits some nationals of these countries, it does not prioritize refugees and it contains numerical limitations that do not apply to those seeking asylum. The arbitrary, highly discretionary nature of the parole determinations is combined with the lack of any statutory mechanism for conferring green cards upon the expiration of parole. This “limbo” situation recreates many of the ad hoc factors of parole programs prior to the Refugee Act of 1980 that Congress specifically intended to eliminate.
Another so-called “feature” of the proposed system being touted by the Administration is the negotiated ability to remove up to 30,000 non-Mexicans per month to Mexico. This is despite the well-publicized dangers awaiting them there, including the recent murders of American tourists and the “slow roasting” of 39 detained asylum seekers in a Mexican detention center fire.
The Biden Administration is also considering re-instituting so-called “family detention” and increased criminal prosecutions of those who cross the border illegally. These policies, also employed by the Trump Administration, have proved highly problematic in the past.
Then there is the mess in the individual asylum adjudication system that was weaponized and largely destroyed by the Trump Administration. Unqualified personnel, perceived to be committed to denying asylum above all else, were selected both at DHS and for Immigration Judge positions at the Immigration Courts, known as EOIR in the Department of Justice. Both the Asylum Office and EOIR are now incredibly backlogged.
As currently operated, the Immigration Courts feature a number of so-called “asylum free zones” where asylum is almost never granted by judges who are renowned for denying 90-100% of the asylum claims, far above the already grossly inflated “national average.”
Even when asylum is granted, it too often depends more upon the attitude and background of the individual Immigration Judge assigned than on the merits of the case. The U.S. Courts of Appeals regularly return cases to EOIR after pointing out very basic legal and factual errors committed by the latter in their undue haste to deny protection!
The current dysfunction at EOIR violates the commands of the law, that I read to your earlier, for due process, fairness, generosity, and applying the benefit of the doubt to asylum adjudications.
Indeed, attempting to avoid the Immigration Courts, now with an astounding 2 million backlog of pending cases, at least 800,000 of them involving asylum, appears to be one of the “drivers” of Biden Administration asylum policies. Unfortunately, in their two years in office, this Administration has done little to reform the Immigration Courts to improve expertise, efficiency, and due process and to repair the systemic damage done during the Trump Administration.
To add insult to injury, incredibly, the Biden Administration just “put on hold” one of the few potential improvements they had made to the asylum process: Allowing Asylum Officers to grant asylum to border applicants who pass credible fear. This would actually bypass the EOIR backlog without diminishing anyone’s due process rights. After pushing this change as potentially “transformational,” the Administration totally blew the implementation in a stunning show of ineptness and lack of basic preparation.
V. BETTER SOLUTIONS THROUGH EXISTING LAW
In my view, and that of other experts, we are once again heading for a systemic failure to do right by refugees and asylum seekers. The primary reason is that, in contravention of the law, the lessons of the Holocaust, which gave birth to the Refugee Convention, and the scriptures, we view refugees — “the stranger in need” — as “problems” or “statistics” to be “deterred,” “punished,” “discouraged,” and “denied.”
This is a wrong-headed — and fundamentally un-Christian — view. Refugees are fellow humans — like us — in need. They are legally entitled and deserving of our protection.
But, beyond that, they are an important source of legal immigration that our country was built upon and continues to need. Indeed most of the ancestors of those of us in this room probably came to this country fleeing or escaping something, regardless of whether or not it would have met today’s refugee definitions.
The border doesn’t have to be a source of disorder and embarrassment to our nation. There are better alternatives, even under existing law.
My experience tells me that if, instead of straining to improperly deter refugees, we use available tools to construct a fair, timely, generous, practical, expert, user-friendly legal system for refugees and asylees, the vast majority of them will use it. That will necessarily take pressure off the task of apprehending those seeking to evade the system.
What I’m going to share with you are ideas for progressive, humane, constructive improvements developed and advocated by many experts and NGOs. Certainly, these are not just my ideas.
First, we must maximize use of the existing provisions for legal screening and admission of refugees processed outside the United States. Currently, those programs are overly cumbersome and far too anemic with respect to the Western Hemisphere, particularly for countries in the Northern Triangle of Central America that are traditional “sending countries.”
Refugees screened and approved abroad arrive at our borders with documents and immediate work authorization. They are also able to bring family members and have a clear statutory path to obtaining green cards and eventually citizenship. These are important factors missing from the ad hoc parole programs instituted by this Administration.
Second, we need radical reforms of our Asylum Offices at USCIS and the Immigration Courts at EOIR. The “deadwood and nay sayers” who overpopulated these agencies during the Trump Administration must be weeded out and replaced with true subject matter experts in asylum, preferably with actual experience representing asylum seekers.
There are many asylum cases, both among arriving applicants, and languishing in the largely self-created backlogs, that could and should be prioritized and rapidly granted. Better trained and qualified Asylum Officers should be encouraged to grant asylum at or near the border whenever possible. That avoids the need to “refer” cases to the backlogged Immigration Courts.
Within EOIR, a great place to “leverage” reform would be at the BIA. That body was intentionally “packed” with some of the highest asylum-denying judges during the Trump Administration. Bringing in well-respected subject matter experts to set positive asylum precedents, establish and enforce best practices, and “ride herd” on the toxic “asylum free zones” and “deniers’ clubs” allowed to flourish among Immigration Courts would be a huge step forward.
And, for those who are found not to have a credible fear of persecution, after a fair screening system and fair rules administered by Asylum Officers who are experts, the law already provides for “summary expedited removal” without resort to full Immigration Court hearings, thus avoiding that backlogged system.
There is not, and has never been, a legitimate need to resort to Title 42 and other improper gimmicks, to deal with large migration situations. To the extent that one believes in the effectiveness of “deterrence” for those who do not have credible asylum claims, it’s built right into our existing law.
Third, the Administration should be working with the private bar, NGOs, states, and local governments to maximize access to pro bono or low bono asylum representation. Currently, far too many adjudications take place either in detention centers in intentionally obscure locations or at out of the way ports along the border.
Achieving representation needs to be a driving factor in establishing asylum processing. Indeed, studies have shown that representation not only dramatically improves results for asylum seekers but also virtually guarantees their appearance at all immigration hearings, without detention. It’s probably the biggest “bang for the buck” in asylum adjudication strategies.
The Government should also be working to encourage and, where possible, fund innovative programs like VIISTA Villanova that train non-attorneys to be “accredited representatives” for recognized non-profit organizations representing asylum seekers.
Fourth, rather than expensive and inhumane detention prisons, the Government should establish a network of “reception centers” near the border and throughout the country. These could provide safe, sanitary, residential housing, education, and even work opportunities while individuals are being timely and professionally processed for asylum. They also could be matched with legal staff.
These centers should be run by NGOs and other social service organizations with government funding. They would be a humane replacement for the privately run “detention centers” that have been the center of controversy and human rights abuses.
Fifth, the government should work with NGOs, charitable organizations, and regional economic consortiums to establish orderly, effective resettlement programs in the U.S. that would match those granted refugee or asylum status with housing and employment opportunities in areas of America where there skills can be best utilized.
Sixth, our government should continue to engage with the UN, other democratic nations, and economic development agencies to address the root causes of migration.
There are many other great ideas out here in the private sector that are being largely ignored by our Government. While nobody disputes the desirability of structural changes in our immigration laws, we could drastically improve and humanize our response to refugee situations just by more creative and robust application of already existing authorities and the expertise available in the U.S. humanitarian and NGO sectors.Approaching asylum as a humanitarian responsibility, rather than a law enforcement conundrum, is the key to escaping from the wilderness of failed “deterrence schemes” and creatinga better future for humanity.
VI. CONCLUSION
I can sum up by quoting one of the members of what I call the “New Due Process Army,” Amy R. Grenier. She said, very perceptively, that stripped of all of its legalistic complexities,“the concept of asylum is fairly simple. It’s the ability to ask for help and have someone listen to your story. And I think that that’s very easy to lose sight of.” I think that is also the message of the quote from Matthew 25 that I began with.
When we ignore these pleas for help from the most vulnerable and instead dehumanize, or as I sometimes say “Dred Scottify” them, we not only endanger their lives, but we also diminish our own humanity. I’ve never found anyone who wanted to be a refugee. And, but for the grace of God, any of us could be a refugee, at any time, often when you are least expecting it.
The problem with asylum at the border is not the law. It’s the lack of will, moral courage, vision, creativity, competence, and basic skills from those charged with implementing the law. In reality, there is plenty of flexibility in the existing law to encourage refugees to apply outside the U.S., to fairly, timely, and generously process those arriving at the border who invoke our laws, and to expeditiously remove those who don’t belong in the asylum system.
There is also plenty of legal authority to change inhumane and expensive “border jails” into “reception centers,” to increase the availability of pro bono representation, to resettle refugees and asylees in an orderly fashion, and to match the needs and skills of refugees and asylees with the needs of communities throughout the U.S.
The real issue is why is our Government wasting time and resources on cruel, legally questionable, ultimately ineffective “deterrence gimmicks” rather than solving problems, protecting the lives, and recognizing the humanity of those in need? Matthew knew what’s the right thing to do! Why don’t our elected leaders and the bureaucrats working for them?
I’ve shared with you some ideas for getting closer to “the vision of Matthew 25” in dealing with refugees and asylees. Of course, I haven’t solved the hard part — how to get the attention of politicians, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges who have largely “tuned out” the legal rights of refugees and other migrants and are all too prone to run from creative solutions, rather than embrace them.
But, hopefully, I have helped to install the first step: For all of us to recognize that contrary to what many say, we can do better for refugees and we should make doing so one of our highest national priorities. How we treat “the most vulnerable — the “least of those among us” — does affect everything else in our lives and our nation’s well-being!
We need to improve the informed dialogue, stand behind our values, and insist that those who govern us do likewise. Thank you and, as we say in the New Due Process Army, due process forever!
