"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Storming The Capitol by Randall Enos, Easton, CT Republished under licenseTrump RegimeDonald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permission
In a video otherwise filled with lies and inaccuracies, the president said a new administration would take over on Jan. 20.
Read the report from Matt Berman @ BuzzFeed News here:
After four years of non-stop lies, malicious incompetence, unbridled racism, cruelty, stupidity, sedition, corruption, grift, graft, unnecessary deaths, and other “crimes against humanity,” the evil 🦹🏿♂️ clown show 🤡 pulls out of town leaving Joe, Kamala, and the decent folks in America (their supporters — i/o/w, us) to deal with The Party of Treason, its scumbag “core traitors,” (Cruz, Hawley, McCarthy, et al), toady enablers of treachery (McConnell, Graham, et al), and anti-American supporters.
Thanks to the voters of Georgia, the 2020 election looks very different than it did 48 hours ago. Barring a highly unlikely shift in the vote count, President-elect Joe Biden will now govern with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. The margins will be thin, but the power of Republicans to obstruct has been sharply diminished.
And the political map of the United States looks very different, too. Four years ago, it was unimaginable that Democratic control of the elected branches of the federal government would be cemented by victories in Senate races in Georgia. The Rev. Raphael Warnock won and Jon Ossoff leads in a state that had not elected a Democrat to the Senate in two decades.
The likely outcome put an exclamation point on Biden’s success and a dagger into the Trump era. President Trump almost certainly hurt Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both directly and indirectly.
Trump’s insistence, against all the evidence, that the November vote in Republican-led Georgia was fraudulently counted split his party and may have discouraged GOP turnout on Tuesday. And Republicans will confront the reality that some voters drawn to the polls when Trump is on the ballot have no interest in participating when he’s not. They are more Trumpublicans than Republicans.
But the president did still more damage to his party by denigrating the $600 stimulus checks in the recently passed economic relief package and calling for $2,000 payments instead. His unexpected veto threat played directly into the argument made by both Warnock and Ossoff: that only Democrats could be trusted to deliver relief to the economically ailing, including the middle class.
Ossoff was unabashed in appealing directly to voters’ immediate interests: “You send me and Reverend Warnock to the Senate, and we will put money in your pocket.” Biden was equally direct when he campaigned for the Democratic duo on the eve of the election. “If you send Jon and the reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks are going out the door, restoring hope and decency and honor to so many people struggling right now,” Biden said. “If you send Sens. Perdue and Loeffler back to Washington, those checks will never get there. It’s just that simple.”
Last November, exit polls showed that voters most worried about the pandemic tended toward Democrats, while those worried about the economy leaned Republican. This led critics on the Democratic left, but also from elsewhere in the party, to argue that its candidates had failed to define a clear economic message.
Warnock and Ossoff did not make that mistake when they were given a second chance in the runoffs. Their defining issues were economic, and their victories would make it far easier for Biden to enact a large new relief package, a major infrastructure program, and expansions in health-care coverage and child care — as well as democracy reforms and voting-rights protections.
Georgia’s outcome also showed that the swing of middle-class suburban voters toward the Democrats was not a one-off reaction to Trump. Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that, with Trump defeated, at least some Republican-inclined anti-Trump voters would come home to the GOP on Tuesday. They didn’t — and were likely put off when Perdue and Loeffler embraced Trump’s efforts to nullify the November votes of their own state and elsewhere.
The contest also lifted up the power of organizing. Led by Stacey Abrams, the Democrats’ 2018 gubernatorial candidate, civil rights and voting rights groups registered hundreds of thousands of new Georgia voters. They lifted Biden to his 11,779-vote victory in the state and then went back to work, registering more voters for the runoff and getting them to cast ballots. The result: turnout for the runoff that came remarkably close to matching November’s levels while Warnock and, likely, Ossoff secured margins larger than Biden’s.
. . . .
****************
Read the full article at the link.
Thank you, Georgia!
With the “Demented Fascist Sore Loser” and “Traitor Ted”Cruz & company stoking the fires of sedition in the streets and revving up an attack on the Capitol through their knowingly bogus anti-American, White Supremacist hate speech, false narratives, vile lies, and baseless conspiracy theories, it’s time to put the GOP to bed for good.
There also should be a move to censure and eventually remove from office through the ballot box Cruz, Hawley, McCarthy, Johnson and the rest of the GOP clowns and traitors whose lies and pandering to Trump stoked this outrage and have brought our nation to the precipice of anarchy. The voters of Georgia have showed us how with hard work, the right pro-humanity message, even against the odds, the anti-democracy GOP can be removed from office at all levels.
Not surprisingly, the Traitor Trump Treason Twitter Account has been “locked.” Too little, too late!
Moscow Mitch and other GOP toadies’ protestations in support of American democracy are far too little, far too late! They are the nihilists who have joined Trump in subverting American democracy and committing “crimes against humanity.” They should not escape accountability!
Then there are still GOP scumbags who refuse to condemn Trump or acknowledge the crimes of his thug rioters! They must be removed from public office, now!
The 81 million of us who saved American democracy need to work hard through legal means to make sure that the anti-democracy minority (“GOP”) never seizes power again! The GOP has proved its disloyalty to our Constitutional order.
It’s time for the GOP to be dissolved and replaced by a legitimate opposition. Even now, scummy GOP legislators insist on delaying the electoral process with bogus claims. I’m tired of indulging these evil clowns and subversives, and particularly, their ignorant anti-American supporters.
Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule
Dear Colleagues:
Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.
Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.
Best wishes, Peter and Shoba
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law
Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!
I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.
The great virtue of President Trump’s smoking subversion tape is that it clarifies the goals of all concerned.
The president’s stated objective is not to expose abuses in the electoral system. It is to pressure the Georgia secretary of state into manipulating the electoral system to squeeze out 11,780 additional votes — Trump specifies the exact number — in his favor. His cynical, delusional justifications are beside the point. He would say anything — invent any lie, allege any conspiracy, defame any opponent, spread any discredited rumor — to perpetuate his power.
This, in turn, illuminates the motives of his congressional enablers. In light of Trump’s clarifying call, the term “enablers” now seems too weak. When Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and their GOP colleagues try to disrupt and overturn a free and fair election, they are no longer just allies of a subversive; they become instruments of subversion. They not only help a liar; they become liars. They not only empower conspiracy theories; they join a conspiracy against American democracy. They not only excuse institutional arson; they set fire to the Constitution and dance around the flame.
Their pathetic motivations no longer matter. Some are simple cowards, frightened by angry people wearing red hats. Are we supposed to indulge their cravenness out of pity? Are we supposed to sympathize with people who want to keep their jobs at the cost of their country? Others eventually want the angry people in red hats to support their political ambitions. Are we supposed to humor people who seek the presidency by spitting on the institution of the presidency? Are we supposed make allowances for a selfishness so comprehensive that it eclipses duty, loyalty and love of country?
We are witnessing what happens when treacherous politicians run in packs. A solitary betrayal of the constitutional order by a member of Congress is a source of shame and, perhaps, a cause for expulsion. When 100 and more Republicans join hands and betray the constitutional order, it is a populist cause. They gain the confidence, even the thrill, of shared disloyalty. But their oath of office — in every single case — has been dishonored. They have demonstrated their unfitness for office and called their own patriotism into question.
So maybe it is for the best that they stand up and be counted. Maybe it is best for Americans to know who will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” — and who will not. By all means, let’s engrave their names into a marble slab — a roll call of those who failed the most important test of self-government in our lifetimes. There are a lot of monuments honoring bravery. Let’s have one dedicated to abject cowardice.
. . . .
It is fortunate for the country that Trump is a clownish figure. In his subversion tape, he ricochets between ominous threats and pathetic lunacy. He is not capable of an organized thought, much less an organized coup. Any revolution with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood in the vanguard is likely to end in the joke bin of history.
And yet: Trump and his congressional implementers have purposely placed a virus in the public order. A significant portion of the country has expressed support for the triumph of anger over institutions. These are potential recruits for anarchy. Trump, Hawley, Cruz and the others may be laying the path for a rougher beast slouching toward Washington. They are shredding the careful work of America’s founders. And they deserve nothing but contempt.
*********************
Read Michael’s full op-ed at the link.
Evil clowns🤡, cowards🤮, traitors🏴☠️, all of them! American needs an opposition party with some integrity. But, the hopes of getting one out of the debris of today’s anti-democracy, corrupt GOP seems pretty slim. The majority of us are going to have to figure out a way to move forward into the future even with this ballast dragging us down. Hopefully, it’s not “mission impossible.”
Biden and Harris are much smarter, more capable, and better qualified than Trump & Pence. But they can’t do it alone. They are going to need lots of help from the majority of us who still believe in our national democracy and are willing to stand up for it. (The “New Due Process Army” for one).🇺🇸
The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs
On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.
Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.
But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.
The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.
The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”
However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.
No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.
In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.
The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.
Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6
Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7
A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8
In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.
The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.
There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?
These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”
The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.
Notes:
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).
See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).
Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).
Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).
Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).
Id. at 203-204.
If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*********************
Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.
But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers?While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!
Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.
Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:
Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”
“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”
In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution
Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.
These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.
Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees.Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”
As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.
Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.
Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.
Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!
Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective andfeckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!
Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston College
Professor Heather Cox Richardson writes in “Letters From An American” (01-02-20):
. . . .
It seems clear that, with no chance of proving this election fraudulent, Trump is now trying to incite violence. Nonetheless, Republicans who are jockeying for the 2024 presidential nomination want to make sure they can pick up Trump’s voters. While McConnell doesn’t want Senators to have to declare their support either way, those vying to lead the party want to differentiate themselves from the pack.
On Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced he would join the efforts of his House colleagues to challenge Biden electors from Pennsylvania and perhaps other states. This will not affect the outcome of the election, but it will force senators to go on record for or against Trump. In a statement, Hawley listed Trump talking points: the influence of “mega corporations” on behalf of Biden and “voter fraud.” Hawley seems pretty clearly to be angling for a leg up in 2024.
On Wednesday night, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) made his own play for the future of the Republican Party. He refuted point by point the idea that Trump won. He scolded his colleagues who are signing on to Trump’s attempt to steal the election, calling them “institutional arsonists.”
“When we talk in private, I haven’t heard a single Congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent – not one,” he wrote on Facebook. “Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will “look” to President Trump’s most ardent supporters.” They think they can “tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage,” he wrote, but they’re wrong. “Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.”
Today, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, launched his own bid to redefine the Republican Party with an attack on Trump’s apparent botching of the coronavirus vaccine rollout. In a press release, Romney noted “[t]hat comprehensive vaccination plans have not been developed at the federal level and sent to the states as models is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”
But he didn’t stop there. Romney went on to say that he was no expert on vaccine distribution, “[b]ut I know that when something isn’t working, you need to acknowledge reality and develop a plan—particularly when hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.” He offered ideas of his own, offering them “not as the answer but as an example of the kind of options that ought to be brainstormed in Washington and in every state.” After listing his ideas, he concluded: “Public health professionals will easily point out the errors in this plan—so they should develop better alternatives based on experience, modeling and trial.”
Romney’s statement was about more than vaccine distribution. With its emphasis on listening to experts and experimenting, it was an attack on the rigid ideology that has taken over the Republican Party. Romney has said he comes to his position from his own experience, not his reading, but he is reaching back to the origins of conservative thought, when Irish statesman Edmund Burke critiqued the French Revolution as a dangerous attempt to build a government according to an ideology, rather than reality. Burke predicted that such an attempt would inevitably result in politicians trying to force society to conform to their ideology. When it did not, they would turn to tyranny and violence.
Sasse’s point-by-point refutation of Trump’s arguments– complete with citations—and Romney’s call to govern according to reality rather than ideology are suggestive. They seem to show an attempt to recall the Republican Party to the true conservatism it abandoned a generation ago.
Much as the idea appeals to me, and much as I admire Professor Richardson, it seems like an noble, yet unrealistic, hope rather than a slice of reality. As noted by Professor Richardson, the current GOP abandoned any real values at least a decade ago. They now rely on the “anti-democracy right” to keep them in business as a party that wields political strength out of proportion to the minority of voters it represents.
I find it perversely amusing, yet fundamentally disturbing, to have heard a Trump voter on TV recently claim to have “voted for the GOP platform” not the man in the last election. She was woefully ignorant of the fact that the GOP had no platform in 2020 other than “whatever Trump says.”
The history of those in the GOP who have been openly critical of Trump and his cult supporters is that they generally either 1) fall into line behind Moscow Mitch and Trump on most issues (e.g., Romney, Collins, et al.) or 2) head for the hills (e.g., Flake, Corker). Unlike the Dems, where spirited opposition is always threatening to rock the boat, true opposition and public dialogue are nearly non-existent in today’s GOP.
Nor does the lack of GOP soul searching and public recognition of Trump’s toxic, highly dishonest, and fundamentally anti-American “non-leadership” and responsibility for his own defeat, as well as the disastrous course his “maliciously incompetent non-leadership” has set for America, lead me to believe that the GOP will head in a “new direction” any time in the foreseeable future.
For example, as I’m writing this Cruz and ten other corrupt GOP “Senators” (or “Senators-elect”) are openly spreading lies and preaching sedition 🏴☠️ in the U.S. Senate.
That shows where the anti-American “Party of Putin and White Nationalist Extremists” ☠️🤮🤥 is headed these days. They might be the minority in their party, but you can bet that they won’t suffer any censure, much criticism, or real consequences from the rest of the GOP for essentially fomenting treason and seeking to undermine the credibility of an election fairly and overwhelmingly won by Biden and Harris.
The real hope for America’s survival is that under Biden and Harris, the Dems can finally figure our how to turn their numerical advantage in the general elections into actual political power to govern. Remains to be seen. Certainly hasn’t happened to date! That’s why we’re in this position, with Dems having won the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections, but held the Presidency after only five of those seven elections.
While I agree with some of what Romney says these days, he is somewhat unique in the GOP. He is one of the few GOP Senators with sufficient independent standing in his home state to be largely immune to criticism and attacks by Trump and his cronies.
Based on their overwhelming refusal over the past four years to put our national interests above Trump’s personal agenda, I (unfortunately) think that a “loyal opposition” springing from today’s GOP is more of a “Dem pipe dream” than a realistic possibility.
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under licenseAmanda Holpuch Reporter The Guardian
Erika Pinheiro, Litigation & Policy Director, Al Otro Lado, speaks at TEDSalon: Border Stories, September 10, 2019 at the TED World Theater, New York, NY Photo: Ryan Lash / TED, Creative Commons License
Amanda Holpuch reports from the Gulag for HuffPost:
. . . .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bars asylum seekers and refugees from the US under an order called Title 42. People who attempt to cross the border are returned, or expelled, back to Mexico, without an opportunity to test their asylum claims. More than 250,000 migrants processed at the US-Mexico border between March and October were expelled, according to US Customs and Border Protection data.
The situation is dire. Thousands of asylum-seekers are stuck at the border, uncertain when they will be able to file their claims. The camps they wait in are an even greater public health risk that before.
Outside the border, Al Otro Lado has fought for detained migrants to get PPE and medical releases. Prisons are one of the worst possible places to be when there is a contagious disease and deaths in the custody of US immigration authorities have increased dramatically this year. They have also provided supplies to homeless migrants in southern California who have been shut out of public hygiene facilities.
Pinheiro said there will be improvements with Trump out of office, but some of the Biden campaign promises to address asylum issues at the border will be toothless until the CDC order is revoked. It’s a point she plans to make in conversations with the transition team.
A prime concern for advocates about the Biden administration is that it will include some of the same people from Barack Obama’s administration, which had more deportations than any other president and laid the groundwork for some controversial Trump policies.
While it is a worry for Pinheiro, she has hope that the new administration will build something better. “I would hope a lot of those people, and I know for some of them, have been able to reflect on how the systems they built were weaponized by Trump to do things like family separation or detaining children,” she said.
Family separation, which has left 545 children still waiting to be reunited with their parents, was a crucial issue for many voters and Pinheiro hopes that energy translates to other immigration policies.
“How did you feel when your government committed the atrocity of family separation in your name?” Pinheiro said. “The next step is really understanding that similar and sometimes worse atrocities are still being committed in the name of border security and limiting migration.”
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
I totally agree with Erika Pinheiro that there is no excuse for the continuing violations of our Constitution, statutes, international obligations, and simple human decency. The regime’s policies are nothing more than “crimes against humanity” thinly disguised as “law enforcement,” “national security,” and “public health” (from a regime whose “malicious incompetence,” cruelty, and callous intentional undermining of medical advice during the pandemic have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans).
Even more disgracefully, the Supremes and other Federal Courts have failed in their Constitutional duty to stand up to the abusers and hold the regime’s scofflaw “leaders” (to where, one might ask?) accountable. What’s the purpose of life-tenured judges who lack the training, wisdom, ethics, and most of all courage to enforce the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable against lawless, dishonest, and fundamentally cowardly “Executive bullies” hiding behind their official positions? Not much, in my view! There are deep problems in all three branches of our badly compromised and ailing Government!
I have also spoken out on Courtsideagainst the dangers of putting the same failed Dem politicos who thoroughly screwed up immigration policy, and particularly the Immigration Courts, back in charge again. I agree with Erika’s hope that some of them have gained wisdom and perspective in the last four years. But, why rely on the hope that those who failed in the past have suddenly gotten smarter, when there are “better alternatives” out there ready to step in and solve the problems?
Why not put in place some talented new faces from the NDPA with better, more progressive ideas, tons of dynamic energy, and the demonstrated willingness and courage to stand tall against bureaucratic tyranny? Give them a chance to solve the problems! Erika looks like one of those who should be solving problems and implementing better immigration policies “from the inside” in the Biden-Harris Administration!
The “deterrence only paradigm” that has driven our border enforcement policies over the past half century has been a demonstrable failure, both in terms of law enforcement and the unnecessary and unjustifiable human carnage that it has caused. Why keep doing variations on discredited policies and expecting better results?
We know that ugly, racist rhetoric, jailing families and kids in punitive conditions, weaponizing courts as enforcement tools, suspending the rule of law, denying hearings, and even summarily, illegally, and immorally returning asylum seekers to death won’t stop folks from fleeing unbearable conditions in their native countries! They will continue to seek protection in America, even in the face of predictable abuses, life-threatening dangers, and little chance of success in a system intentionally “gamed” to mistreat and reject them while denying their humanity.
Desperate people do desperate things. They will continue to do them even in the face of inhuman abuses inflicted by those whose better fortunes in life have not been accompanied by any particular compassion, understanding of the predicament of others, or recognition of an obligation to abjure the power to bully and torment those less fortunate in favor of addressing their situations in a fair, reasonable, and humane manner.
Human migration is far older than nation states, zero tolerance, baby jails, family incarceration, biased judging, national selfishness disguised as “patriotism,” and border walls. It has outlasted and outflanked all of the vain attempts to artificially suppress it by force and gimmicks. It’s time for some policies that recognize reality, see its benefits, and work with the flow rather than futilely in opposition to it.
It’s past time to look beyond the failures of yesterday to progressive solutions and new leadership committed to solving problems while enhancing justice, respecting human dignity, and enhancing human rights (which, in the end, are all of our rights)!
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!
President-elect Biden has promised a broad array of reforms that would impact refugees, asylum seekers, and other forced migrants. He has indicated he will restore Temporary Protected Status, place a moratorium on deportations, and end prolonged detention and for-profit detention centers. These are all crucially important to the safety and security of migrants and their families in the United States and other countries, especially in the Western Hemisphere. President-elect Biden has also promised to end the Trump administration’s policy of making asylum seekers “remain in Mexico” while awaiting hearings in U.S. immigration court.
However, in recent weeks, a flawed and fatalistic view of migration to the U.S. southern border has taken hold in some media accounts and reports. It goes like this: President Trump’s Remain in Mexico (or MPP) policy has created a logistical and humanitarian crisis at the southern U.S. border that, despite President-elect Biden’s promises, will be very difficult to undo. Further, a combination of pull and push factors (especially in the wake of hurricanes in Central America) will lead to increased migration to the southern U.S. border this spring such that President-elect Biden will have little choice but to keep the border sealed under an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as he attempts to deal with COVID-19 in border states and fulfill other immigration policy promises—including uniting families the Trump administration ripped apart two years ago.
There are several problems with this line of argument, many of which are addressed in this report. Most fundamentally, keeping the border sealed and migrants waiting in Mexico will perpetuate serious abuses. Family separations and other violations of human rights, as well as violations of U.S. law, will continue to occur under a Biden administration that does not implement new policies at the border. Recently, MPP and the CDC border closure have exacerbated smuggling and trafficking at the border, as well as other forms of abuse against migrants. For example, the CDC order has led to the repatriation of Nicaraguan dissidents as well as the return of a sexually abused Guatemalan child. It has also led asylum seekers to try to cross undetected in remote desert areas. Further, unwinding MPP and allowing asylum seekers to ask for protection at the border is not only the right thing to do, but also feasible with the proper planning. Indeed, it presents the incoming administration with an opportunity to rethink migration management, especially for those seeking asylum, and to implement a new screening process that is both more humane and more efficient.
President-elect Biden has invoked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—healer, rebuilder, and practical problem solver—as a model. During World War II, Roosevelt planned and devoted significant resources to resolving the largest displacement crisis the world had ever known. This planning was part of an effort to ensure that what happened in 1939 to the S.S. St. Louis—a ship of asylum-seeking Jews turned away by the United States and other countries—would not occur again.
During his first week in office, President-elect Biden should issue an executive order on border asylum policy that departs dramatically from that which President Trump put forth during his first week. President Biden’s executive order should give asylum seekers access to the border and provide for cooperation with border states and shelters to safely and humanely receive asylum seekers. It should allocate resources to alternatives to detention, including case management, and to improved adjudication of asylum claims in immigration courts, especially through provision of legal services. It should also commit to ending practices associated with expedited removal of asylum seekers that have resulted in abuses, and to the use of parole to unwind MPP. Finally, through revocation of Trump administration decisions, regulations, and policies, as well as through settlement of lawsuits and the withdrawal of appeals to federal courts regarding these policies, the executive order should commit to restoring asylum eligibility to those who have fled persecution but have been denied or prevented from obtaining protection.
In taking such action, President-elect Biden would be fulfilling not only his campaign promises but the commitment he made when he voted for Senate passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. That law, supported by large majorities of both parties, promised to ensure fair access to asylum at the border.
This report shows why it is imperative that the Biden administration do this rather than keep us mired in a policy framework that does not work and that has led to a cycle of crises. It does so by looking back to a momentous time of transition about thirty years ago. With the Cold War ending, the United States had to rethink its assumptions about who merited refugee status. Only a handful of refugee resettlement slots in the U.S. Refugee Program were allotted to Central Americans, and the United States had not yet developed clear procedures for effectively handling asylum seekers at the southwestern border. Rather than acknowledge the forces pushing people northward, U.S. policymakers adopted a paradigm that was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on deterrence. This is a paradigm that we are still in today.
At different points over the past thirty years, humanitarian and constructive policies have tempered the harshness of this paradigm, and such policies have also brought benefits in terms of cost and efficiency. These policies need to be adapted and scaled up. But they also need to be placed within a welcoming framework that does not presume asylum seekers are a threat. Instead of devoting tremendous resources to a futile and rights-violating attempt to block those already on the move, we have to try to better understand the drivers of migration, which, for Central Americans, include corruption, poverty, insecurity, and violence.We must devote resources instead to humanely receiving asylum seekers and adjudicating their claims fairly. We also have to stop assuming that the best place to manage admissions of all Central Americans seeking protection is at the border.
The Deterrence Paradigm
The deterrence paradigm has been implemented repeatedly using the same counterproductive strategies.
. . . .
*************
Read the rear of Yael’s article at the link.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼⚖️🗽🇺🇸
Folks like my Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf and I have been “preaching” for an abandonment of the unlawful, inhumane, incredibly wasteful, and demonstrably ineffective “deterrence paradigm.”
The skill set to establish a lawful, better, humane, efficient asylum system, consistent with our Constitutional, statutory, and international obligations is out there, mainly in the private/NGO/academic communities. I/O/W the “practical scholars, litigators, and advocates” in the NDPA.
It’s a just a question of the incoming Biden/Harris Administration getting beyond the “enforcement only” mentality, personnel, and White Nationalist nativist thinking that currently infects the entire USG immigration bureaucracy, at all levels. Replace the current failed leadership with experts from the NDPA and empower them to work with other experts in the private sector to institute a better system that would be no more costly, likely less, than the current “built to fail” abominations that not only waste resources but destroy human lives and are an ugly stain on our national conscience!
I also appreciate Yael’s recognition of the pressing and compelling need to “end the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️@ EOIR:”
Immigration Court Reform
EOIR policies during the Trump administration have been at odds with principles of due process and judicial independence. These include the imposition of numeric case completion quotas and docket management policies that deprive asylum seekers of procedural protections; appointment of judges who almost exclusively come from prosecutorial backgrounds (especially working at DHS and in law enforcement); promotion to permanent positions on an expanded BIA of judges with asylum denial rates much higher than the national average; and procedures that limit the ability of claimants to effectively appeal their cases. The Biden administration should conduct an urgent review of EOIR hiring practices and immigration court procedures and develop recommendations for regulatory or structural changes consistent with the protection needs of asylum seekers.
The critical “urgent review” should be done by a “Team of Experts from the NDPA” brought in on an immediate temporary basis, if necessary, in accordance with Federal Personnel Rules, to replace the current Senior “Management” @ EOIR as well as the entire BIA. There’s no better way to fix the system than to take over management, restore fairness and order, and get inside the current disastrous mess @ the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️! Importantly, the “Team of Experts” with effective operational control could immediately begin fixing (and conversely stop aggravating and creating) the glaring problems while putting the structure and personnel in place for long-term reforms.
Lives ☠️⚰️ are at stake here! We need ACTION, not merely study and evaluation. “Fixing the system on the fly” may be challenging, but it’s perfectly within the capabilities of the right team of NDPA experts! Dems often prefer study and dialogue to effective actions. As Toby Keith would say: We need “a little less talk and a lot more action.”
Published Dec. 27, 2020
Updated Dec. 29, 2020, 10:07 a.m. ET
Last Wednesday, I broke the news to Heather Cox Richardson that she was the most successful individual author of a paid publication on the breakout newsletter platform Substack.
Early that morning, she had posted that day’s installment of “Letters From an American” to Facebook, quickly garnering more than 50,000 reactions and then, at 2:14 a.m., she emailed it to about 350,000 people. She summarized, as she always does, the events of the day, and her 1,120 words covered a bipartisan vote on a spending measure, President Trump’s surprise attack on that bill, and a wave of presidential pardons. Her voice was, as it always is, calm, at a slight distance from the moment: “Normally, pardons go through the Justice Department, reviewed by the pardon attorney there, but the president has the right to act without consulting the Department of Justice,” she wrote. “He has done so.”
The news of her ranking seemed to startle Dr. Richardson, who in her day job is a professor of 19th century American history at Boston College. The Substack leader board, a subject of fascination among media insiders, is a long way from her life on a Maine peninsula — particularly as the pandemic has ended her commute — that seems drawn from the era she studies. On our Zoom chat, she sat under a portrait that appeared as if it could be her in period costume, but is, in fact, her great-great-grandmother, who lived in the same fishing village, population a bit over 600.
She says she tries not to think too much about the size of her audience because that would be paralyzing, and instead often thinks of what she’s writing as a useful primary document for some future version of her historian self. But there was no ignoring her metrics when her accountant told her how much she would owe in taxes this year, and, by extension, just how much revenue her unexpected success had brought. By my conservative estimate based on public and private Substack figures, the $5 monthly subscriptions to participate in her comments section are on track to bring in more than a million dollars a year, a figure she ascribes to this moment in history.
“We’re in an inflection moment of American politics, and one of the things that happens in that moment is that a lot of people get involved in politics again,” she said.
Many of those newly energized Americans are women around Dr. Richardson’s age, 58, and they form the bulk of her audience. She’s writing for people who want to leave an article feeling “smarter not dumber,” she says, and who don’t want to learn about the events of the day through the panicked channels of cable news and Twitter, but calmly situated in the long sweep of American history and values.
Dr. Richardson’s focus on straightforward explanations to a mass audience comes as much of the American media is going in the opposite direction, driven by the incentives of subscription economics that push newspapers, magazines, and cable channels alike toward super-serving subscribers, making you feel as if you’re on the right team, part of the right faction, at least a member of the right community. She’s not the only one to have realized that a lot of people feel left out of the media conversation. Many of the most interesting efforts in journalism in 2021, some of them nonprofit organizations inspired by last summer’s protests over racism, will be trying to reach people who are not part of that in-group chat. One new nonprofit, Capital B, plans to talk to Black audiences, while another well-regarded model is Detroit’s Outlier Media, which is relentlessly local and often delivered by text message. For Dr. Richardson’s audience, it’s an intimate connection. She spends hours a day answering emails from readers. She spent most of Saturday sending thank-you notes for Christmas presents.
The challenge for many of those efforts, and for nonprofit news organizations in general, has been reaching large numbers of people. Dr. Richardson, whose run of short essays began when she was stunned by the response to one she posted last September, has done that by accident, though she credits her huge audience of older women to the deepening gender gap in American politics.
“What I am doing is speaking to women who have not necessarily been paying attention to politics, older people who had not been engaged,” Dr. Richardson said. “I’m an older woman and I’m speaking to other women about being empowered.”
Dr. Richardson confounds many of the media’s assumptions about this moment. She built a huge and devoted following on Facebook, which is widely and often accurately viewed in media circles as a home of misinformation, and where most journalists don’t see their personal pages as meaningful channels for their work.
. . . .
***************
Read Ben’s full article at the link.
Dr. HCR is certainly a favorite at our house! Her writing is very “accessible” — you don’t have to be a scholar or an academic to understand her “info packed” daily letters.
She also illustrates the important role of history and the liberal arts at promoting critical thinking and informed analysis at all levels of our educational system.
“Conspiracy theories,” intentionally false narratives, myths, racial bias, inequality, and hatred all flourish in the dark.
Thanks to our leading “Warrior Queen” Ilyce and her team of knightesses and knights who took the lead on this phase of the never ending battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.”
I trust that it will take more than another pathetic “Alternative Fact Sheet” 🤥 to save the sorry bunch @ “EOIR’s Clown Tower”🤡🦹🏿♂️ in Falls Church from accountability for their sycophancy, false narratives, and constant assaults on due process, the rule of law, truth, and human decency. 👎🏻🏴☠️☠️⚰️🤮 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Indicative and very telling that as justice further deteriorates, backlogs mushroom, productivity drops, public outrage grows, chaos reigns, (already rock bottom) morale plummets, and vulnerable humans suffer, the “malicious incompetents” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR spend time and public resources on this nonsense!
There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America without “radical due process reform” that ends forever the disgraceful “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (particularly migrants of color, women, families, and, most disgustingly, children) by the EOIR Clown Courts!🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ To paraphrase Rev. King, “Injustice to one is injustice to all.”
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴☠️
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawBlaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Groups Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”
The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.
For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.
“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.
The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.
The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiplecourts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.
*****************
Speeding up executions, killing and torturing the most vulnerable humans, denying COVID relief to desperate Americans, issuing corrupt pardons to murderers, fraudsters, cronies, and dishonest politicos, plotting treason against the USG — that’s how the regime and its sycophants have spent their waning days.
Despite the obvious desire to move on and avoid dealing with the crimes and overt corruption of the defeated regime, it will be difficult for the Biden-Harris Administration to avoid questions of accountability for the worst President, worst regime, and worst major party in U.S. history. Honestly coming to grips with the past is often a prerequisite for a better future.
The bipartisan compromise was considered a done deal and won sweeping approval in the House and Senate after the White House assured GOP leaders that Trump supported it.
If he refuses to sign the deal, which is attached to a $1.4-trillion government funding bill, it will force a federal government shutdown, in addition to delaying aid checks and halting unemployment benefits and eviction protections in the most dire stretch of the pandemic.
“Made many calls and had meetings at Trump International in Palm Beach, Florida. Why would politicians not want to give people $2000, rather than only $600?” he tweeted after leaving the golf course Friday afternoon. “It wasn’t their fault, it was China. Give our people the money!”
Trump’s attack on the bill has been seen, at least in part, as punishment for what he considers insufficient backing by congressional Republicans for his push to overturn the Nov. 3 election results with unfounded claims of fraud.
*************
Read the full article at the link.
Of course it’s not about China; it’s about the worst President in history and his totally worthless party of sycophants, bigots, and anti-American “situational skinflints.”
Plenty of public funding for tax breaks, unneeded walls, environmental destruction, and abusive “law enforcement.” Not so much for American workers, small businesses, essential workers, teachers, civil servants, and others struggling to survive during the crisis unnecessarily deepened by the “malicious incompetence” of the “Evil Clown Prez”🤡🦹🏿♂️ and his anti-democracy party.
BTW, is Lindsay “Scumbag” Graham 🤮going for the title of “third worst human on the public dole” — right behind the “ECP”🤡🦹🏿♂️ & the Grauleiter☠️?
26 days and counting to the end of the kakistocracy🏴☠️!
Jacob Soboroff NBC Correspondent Jacob Soboroff at the ABC News Democratic Debate National Constitution Center. Philadelphia, PA. Creative Commons License
Jacob Soboroff reports for NBC News:
Inside the effort to provide mental health care to migrant families
SHARE THIS –
COPIED
Seneca Family of Agencies provides mental health care to migrant families separated by the Trump administration. NBC News’ Jacob Soboroff reports on the obstacles faced by the nonprofit in locating families.
Jacob and his terrific NBC News colleague Julia Edwards Ainsley have been at the forefront of exposing the irreparable human carnage and lasting trauma caused by the regime’s unlawful, racist, White Nationalist immigration policies (some of which were unconscionably “greenlighted” by an immoral and irresponsible Supremes GOP majority that views themselves and their rotten to the core, inhumane, right-wing ideology as above the needless human suffering they further and encourage).
The “perps” like,”Gonzo” Sessions, Grauleiter Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan, Noel Francisco, Rod Rosenstein, et al, walk free while the victims continue to suffer and others, like the Christ-like folks at Seneca Family of Agencies, are left to pick up the pieces! How is this “justice?”
Our national policies have truly abandoned Christ’s values of self-sacrifice, mercy, generosity in spirit and deed, courage in the face of oppression, human compassion, justice, and assistance for the most vulnerable among us under the perverted and immoral “leadership” of a man and his party without humane values or respect for truth who stand for absolutely nothing that is decent in the world.
As Americans suffer and die from the pandemic he mocked, downplayed, and mishandled; unemployed Americans are dissed and shortchanged by his party of underachieving, out of touch fat cats, liars, cowards, and truth deniers; asylum seekers needlessly suffer in squalid camps in Mexico; refugees scorned, unlawfully and immorally abandoned and abused by the world’s richest country face persecution, torture, despair, and death; and non-criminals rot in DHS’s “New American Gulag,” the immoral Grifter-in-Chief lives it up at taxpayer expense for one last Christmas at his Florida resort; fumes about a fair and square election that he lost big time; savors a rash of holiday executions; delays bipartisan COVID relief; ferments treason against our republic; and pardons a wide range of scumbags, felons, war criminals, family members, cronies, fraudsters, and other totally undeserving characters.
But, there is hope for our world at Christmas: 27 days and counting to the end of the kakistocracy, expulsion of the unqualified con-man and his motley crew of criminals and cronies, and the ascension of a real President and Vice President, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to lead us, and perhaps our world, out of the current mess to a kinder, brighter future. That might be the best present of all this Christmas.
WASHINGTON, D.C.(December 23, 2020) — A group of asylum seekers and immigrant services organizations are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), purported Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, and purported Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle to vacate tworules that have drastically curtailed access to work authorization and identity documentation for people who flee to the United States and apply for asylum protection. The new rules, in effect since August, force asylum seekers to wait years for their cases to move through the backlogged immigration system before they may lawfully earn an income.
“These rules were one cruel part of the Trump administration’s continuous efforts throughout its single term in office to dismantle the United States’ commitment to provide refuge to people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, litigation director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel in the case. “These particular rules betray so much of what our country is supposed to value; they try to deter asylum seekers from coming at all and deprive those who make it here of the means to support themselves and their families.”
The rules bar asylum applicants from receiving work permits for at least a year after they file their asylum applications and prevent some individuals from working for the entire duration of their cases — often several years.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Kids in Need of Defense also are providing co-counsel in the case, representing 14 individuals and three organizational plaintiffs before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The individual plaintiffs in the case are asylum seekers, including transgender women and parents with small children, who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence and are prevented under the new rules from receiving work permits. Three organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — say the new rules threaten to derail their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers’ ability to earn an income is critical for them to be able to pursue their legal cases and meet basic needs such as housing and mental and medical healthcare, and to avoid falling victim to human trafficking or other exploitation. Furthermore, in many states, work permits are the only identification documentation asylum seekers receive until they are granted protection.
“This lawsuit is about upholding basic human dignity,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, founder and executive director of AsylumWorks, lead plaintiff in the case. “Asylum seekers are simply looking for a fair shake — the chance to work, pay for their own housing, feed and clothe their families. Our asylum system should be rooted in justice and compassion. Instead, this policy forces future Americans — many of whom have already escaped unspeakable hardship — into further danger and depravity. This is a crisis the Trump Administration is determined to make worse. Denying the right to work for one year means unnecessarily delaying the time before asylum seekers can become productive, tax-paying members of the workforce, and denying our country vital frontline workers willing to risk their lives at this critical time.”
“These rules will force courageous survivors of violence into dangerously precarious living situations, needlessly compounding their suffering. They will also make it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers to afford legal representation, which we know can make a life-saving difference in these cases, and to sustain themselves and their families while they seek protection,” said Annie Daher, staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, co-counsel in the case. “The rules will undoubtedly result in refugees being wrongly denied asylum and ordered deported to the very dangers they have fled.”
In its comments to the Federal Register, the Trump administration said that governments should take responsibility for individuals who may be harmed by the rule, stating that asylum seekers who may become homeless as a result of the rule changes should “become familiar with the homelessness resources provided by the state where they intend to reside.”
The plaintiffs ask the district court to vacate the proposed rules, arguing the rules violate U.S. laws and that the government did not provide adequate rationale for the harm the rules would cause. The lawsuit also argues that Wolf was not validly serving in that role when the agency issued the rules and Mizelle was no longer validly serving in that role when he signed the rules. Federal courts have already found that Wolf was not lawfully appointed to his position when he enacted other harmful immigration rules, including the administration’s failed attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Additional plaintiffs in the case offered the following statements:
Richard Caldarone, litigation counsel, Tahirih Justice Center: “Instead of allowing those fleeing violence and persecution to live their lives while they pursue relief in the United States, the government has deliberately chosen to condemn survivors and other asylum seekers to lengthy periods of homelessness, food insecurity, and unnecessary poverty. There are many understandable reasons why survivors of violence may wait more than a year to apply for asylum – including the need to heal from trauma or the need to avoid reliving painful memories. Our immigration system must uphold the right for survivors to work while their cases continue, rather than slamming the door shut to safety.”
Misha Seay, Managing Attorney, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto: “These rules are a cruel attempt at forcing asylum seekers into poverty and homelessness if they choose to move forward with their asylum claims and wait for their day in court, which in some cases may take years. Asylum seekers will be stuck in a catch-22 of being unable to afford an attorney to help them apply for a work permit and seek asylum, and unable to lawfully work and earn a living so that they can afford to hire an attorney,” says Misha Seay, Managing Attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “Our government’s commitment to providing protection to those fleeing persecution cannot be fulfilled if we make their everyday life impossible while they navigate that process.”
###
The National Immigrant Justice Center is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education.
NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 | Chicago, Illinois 60604 immigrantjustice.org
********************
Thanks, Joan, my friend and a true hero of the NDPA, for speaking out and taking action to fight the “crimes against humanity” that continue to be committed by the kakistocracy and their baggage handlers on their way out the door!
Under Joan’s dynamic and courageous leadership, AsylumWorks has been providing support and community assistance services to asylum seekers in the D.C. area for several years. She has now expanded her organization’s mission to include impact litigation to protect and enhance the human dignity and the human rights of asylum seekers!
Check out AsylumWorks and their great programs (and contribute to this most worthy cause) at their website here:
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule
1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law
2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.
“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”
Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.
Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”
The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.
The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”
Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.
Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’
*******************
Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
