"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.
TIJUANA, Mexico—If you go early in the morning to the plaza in front of El Chaparral, the border crossing where a person can walk from Mexico into the state of California, you’ll hear shouts like “2,578: El Salvador!” and “2,579: Guatemala!”—a number, followed by a place of origin. Every day, groups of families gather around, waiting anxiously underneath the trees at the back of the square. The numbers come from La Lista, The List: When a person’s number is called, it’s their turn to ask for asylum in the United States.…
We should never forget the life-tenured Article III judges, mostly on the appellate level including the Supremes, whose abandonment of both their oaths of office and their humanity has enabled the Trump Regime’s all-out assault on the rule of law and our democratic institutions to succeed to the extent it already has.
Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. justice system and all the laws he doesn’t like or doesn’t want to follow counts heavily on the complicity or the outright assistance off Article III Federal Judges. To date, notwithstanding some wimpy disingenuous protests from Chief Justice Roberts, bemoaning the predictable lack of respect for the judicial system that he and his colleagues enabled by their complicity, the higher level Article IIIs haven’t disappointed Trump. That’s how the regime’s scofflaws can, without any legislative action, create“exile cities” in “unsafe third countries” right at our border, in violation of both the guarantees of our asylum laws and the Constitutional right to Due Process!
I spent many years of my career dealing daily with the results of failed states, authoritarian regimes, and fallen democracies. I know a lot about how oppression works and how democracies and constitutional republics fail.
I have some very bad news for the “life-tenured ones” in their ivory towers: failed states, authoritarian regimes, and failed democracies ultimately have no use for anything approaching an independent judiciary. Maybe those Article III appellate judges should think and reflect before they cast their next votes to empower autocracy over democracy.
Like all social change, population growth has costs (increased use of limited resources) and benefits (fresh ideas, more people to do necessary work). On the whole, history — both global and American — refutes the Malthusian belief that more people means more misery. To the contrary, a growing labor force is one factor that determines an economy’s capacity to grow. On that basis alone, it would be concerning that the Census Bureau has released new data showing that the U.S. population grew only 6.7 percent in the past decade, which is the slowest 10-year rate since the census began in 1790. Add that all living members of the baby boom generation will have turned 65 by 2030 — and that 18 percent of the nation will be at least that age, according to Pew Research Center population projections — and demographic stagnation begins to seem uncomfortably realistic.
The good news is that, even at reduced rates of growth, the U.S. population, 328.2 million, is still expanding more rapidly than populations of peer nations such as Japan (whose population of 126 million is actually shrinking). The bad news, though, is that both sources of the U.S. edge in population dynamism — a relatively strong birthrate and immigration — are implicated in the Census Bureau’s report. Net international migration — permanent moves to the United States minus permanent departures — was 595,348 between 2018 and 2019. In 2016, by contrast, the figure was 1,046,709. The Census Bureau and other experts have yet to identify a specific cause, but it’s certainly plausible to link the decline to the anti-immigration posture adopted by President Trump during that interval.
Meanwhile, the natural increase in the population between 2018 and 2019 — births minus deaths — was 956,674, the first reading under 1 million in “decades,” according to the Census Bureau. As of 2018, the United States’ total fertility ratestood at 1,728 births per 1,000 women over their lifetimes, well below the replacement rate of 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The causes are unknown, though there may be a continued hangover from the economic uncertainty of the Great Recession.
Unchecked, these trends may mean less economic growth and a diminished support base for a large retired cohort. Boosting birthrates, to be sure, is notoriously difficult, as a number of European countries and Japan have already discovered. Of course, compared with those other countries, the United States has done little to provide paid family leave or subsidized child care — and could do more.
Boosting immigration, by contrast, is relatively easy to accomplish. Or it would be, if the president and many in his party were not engaged in a simplistic campaign to demonize it, one result of which has been to slash refugee admissions from 85,000 in fiscal 2016 to 30,000 in fiscal 2019. Immigration should come through legal channels and be more closely tailored to fit labor force needs. But the need for more of it is real.
The recent dip in population growth need not prove irreversible. But the fact that starting a new life in the United States has come to seem less attractive, both to prospective parents already living here and to prospective arrivals from abroad, is a warning this country cannot afford to ignore.
*************************************************
Not surprisingly, largely fact-free policy making based on a White Nationalist agenda and the myths about immigrants it necessarily generates will contravene the national interests in many ways while serving the narrow political and sociological interests of a vocal and motivated minority.
I have tried to write at least one column every year about Guantánamo in the belief that what happened there, and what the Supreme Court had to say about it, still matters — even though only a few dozen prisoners remain from the hundreds once held there as legal proceedings grind on with no end in sight.
Having missed my goal in 2019, I’m starting the new year with a Guantánamo column. It’s not about Guantánamo per se, but rather about a new Supreme Court case that will test the current justices’ adherence to an important constitutional principle that emerged from the struggle among the three branches of government over what legal regime should govern the detention of those deemed enemy combatants in the aftermath of 9/11.
In a series of rulings from 2004 through 2008 that were notable for majority coalitions of justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, the court rejected the claims of both the White House and Congress that the federal courts had no business in Guantánamo. The most important of these decisions was the final one, Boumediene v. Bush. Congress had tried in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. The court ruled, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek habeas corpus, the ancient English remedy for illegal detention.
The case now before the court, to be argued in early March, is in essential respects Boumediene’s direct descendant. The question in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is whether a 1996 federal immigration law unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases, including habeas corpus cases, brought by undocumented immigrants who are subject to what the law designated as “expedited removal.”
The immigrant in this case, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, is a member of the minority Tamil population in Sri Lanka who applied for asylum after being apprehended crossing the Mexican border into California. Expedited removal applies to, among others, those aliens who are deemed inadmissible upon arrival; an immigration officer can order their immediate deportation. The rules are different if the immigrant is seeking asylum. Those individuals appear before an asylum officer to be screened for the required “credible fear of persecution or torture” if sent back to their home countries.
If “credible fear” is found, immigrants enter what is known as a “full removal proceeding” where they can apply for asylum and obtain judicial review if asylum is denied. But an immigrant who fails the initial screening, as Mr. Thuraissigiam did, receives only a truncated administrative review process and remains in expedited removal. The only access to federal court is for a claim of mistaken identity. The law, which carries the unwieldy name of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, provides: “There shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.”
In its decision last March, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the law unconstitutional. “Boumediene is our starting point,” the appeals court wrote. It held that like the Military Commissions Act that the Supreme Court invalidated in that case, the immigration law amounted to an unconstitutional “suspension” of habeas corpus. The reference is to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause, which provides: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
In the government’s petition to the Supreme Court, which the justices granted in October, Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Boumediene was “fundamentally different” from this case, because while the Guantánamo detainees were seeking release from custody so they could return home, Mr. Thuraissigiam is already free to return home but is trying to stay: “He would be removed to and released in Sri Lanka forthwith absent his habeas petition.”
Whatever its merits, this was a conventional legal argument. Lawyers are always distinguishing their case from the case that set the precedent, aiming to persuade a court that the precedent shouldn’t apply because the facts or context are different.
Then something changed.
The brief on the merits that Solicitor General Francisco filed in December took a surprisingly different line of attack on the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In addition to distinguishing Boumediene as inapplicable, the brief argues that Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claim must fail because the Constitution’s framers would not have applied the Suspension Clause to immigrants seeking relief from deportation. This is an aggressive “originalist” argument that comes very close to telling the court that Boumediene itself was wrongly decided. “This court has stated that ‘the Suspension Clause protects the writ as it existed in 1789,’ ” the brief asserts, citing an immigration case from 2001, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr. It continues: “And in 1789, the writ did not protect the sort of claim that respondent asserts here.”
To be generous, that is at best a partial rendering of what Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion in the St. Cyr case. Here is the relevant paragraph, highlighting two important words that the administration’s brief left out (Enrico St. Cyr was a Haitian immigrant trying to avoid deportation; he won the case):
“In sum, even assuming that the Suspension Clause protects only the writ as it existed in 1789, there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that pure questions of law like the one raised by the respondent in this case could have been answered in 1789 by a common law judge with power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. It necessarily follows that a serious Suspension Clause issue would be presented if we were to accept the I.N.S.’s submission that the 1996 statutes have withdrawn that power from federal judges and provided no adequate substitute for its exercise.”
Justice Kennedy voted with the St. Cyr majority. And in his majority opinion seven years later in Boumediene, he had this to say: “The court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope of the writ.”
What accounts for the administration’s aggressive advocacy in the face of the carefully nuanced precedents that apply to this area of the law? Two factors, I think. The first is that conservatives despise the Boumediene opinion. Judge Raymond Randolph, a stalwart conservative on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who wrote the opinion that the Supreme Court overturned in Boumediene, has openly been at war with the Supreme Court over Guantánamo.
In a 2010 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he compared the justices in the Boumediene majority to Tom and Daisy Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby:” “careless people, who smashed things up” and who “let other people clean up the mess they made.” And another conservative judge on the same court, Laurence Silberman, in a concurring opinion in 2011 called Boumediene “the Supreme Court’s defiant — if only theoretical — assertion of judicial supremacy.”
After Boumediene, dozens of Guantánamo detainees brought habeas corpus petitions in Federal District Court in Washington, and the judges of that court granted relief to many of them. But the conservative judges on the appeals court overturned one favorable ruling after another in what at least from the outside looked like a systematic effort to “clean up the mess” by rendering a potentially powerful rights-protecting decision toothless. Not once did the appeals court uphold a detainee’s grant of habeas corpus. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a judge on the D.C. Circuit throughout that period, joined the majority in two of the more important cases.
The war on Boumediene is not ancient history. In his widely noticed speech to the Federalist Society in November, Attorney General William P. Barr took direct aim at the decision, referring to it as the climax of “the most blatant and consequential usurpation of executive power in our history.” According to the attorney general, the Supreme Court, in its series of Guantánamo cases, “set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict — decisions that lie at the very core of the president’s discretion as commander in chief.”
An attorney general doesn’t ordinarily get involved in the day-in, day-out work of the solicitor general’s office. I’m willing to speculate that Mr. Barr was at most only vaguely aware of the Thuraissigiam case until the court agreed to hear it. I’m guessing that at that point, he saw his opening — an opportunity to shackle the right of habeas corpus to a theory of originalism, as rigid as it is ahistorical, and to perhaps inspire some justices to take a fresh look back at Boumediene.
That brings to me the second factor that explains the turn the administration is taking. Both the St. Cyr and Boumediene cases were decided by votes of 5 to 4. (Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene was memorable. “It will almost certainly cause Americans to die,” he predicted.) Justice Kennedy was in the majority in both. Now, of course, Justice Kavanaugh sits in Justice Kennedy’s seat.
In renewing my commitment to write about Guantánamo every year, I’m not limiting myself to once a year. This case has been overshadowed by pending Supreme Court cases on issues more central to the public conversation. But in their time, it was the Guantánamo cases that held the country in thrall. The current attorney general’s position notwithstanding, that series of decisions represents the best the Supreme Court has to offer the country, an assertion of principle beyond politics. The Trump administration’s advocacy having put that legacy on the line, the question now is whether it will be shredded like so much else in this troubled time.
*******************************
Recently, Chief Justice Roberts remarked on the importance of democratic institutions and judicial independence.
Sadly, the Chiefie and his band of righty politico-judges that form the Supremes’ majority have been rather pathetic examples of how democratic institutions decay and die. With the exception of a rather meek rebuke of outrageous Trump regime fraud and contemptuous lies in the “Census Case,” Roberts and his band have been major contributors to the fecklessness and complicity of the higher level Article III judiciary when confronted by dishonesty and tyranny.
They have eviscerated voting rights, green-lighted unconstitutional gerrymandering by the GOP to dilute voting power on the basis of race, approved a fraudulent “Muslim Ban” based on contrived reasons covering up an obvious invidious purpose, failed to halt unconstitutional immigration detention practices, and allowed the Administration to effectively repeal US and international asylum protections based on Executive action that contravenes both the statute and Constitutional Due Process.
Actions speak louder than words, Chiefie! Until you and your “go along to get along” GOP appointed colleagues act like real judges rather than appendages of right-wing politicos, you won’t get the respect that you seem to crave and believe you deserve. And, that’s why Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco treats you and your colleague like “bought and paid for” political toadies, assigned to do his and his master’s bidding at the expense of our Constitution and the individual rights it was meant to protect.
There are courageous lawyers, judges, and bureaucrats out there putting themselves at risk to protect the democratic institutions and rule of law that you tout. Your complicity is undermining their efforts at every turn. Why don’t you and your colleagues wake up, smell the roses, and come to the aid and support of those doing your job of protecting American democracy for you?
IMMIGRATION DETENTION IS PART OF MASS INCARCERATION: THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING ICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE
NOT MANY PEOPLE besides immigration law wonks had probably heard of “Section 1325,” before Julián Castro called for repealing it during the first Democratic presidential primary debate this summer. The law in question makes it a federal crime to enter the U.S. without permission — turning an immigration offense into a criminal one. President Donald Trump used a policy of “zero tolerance” for breaking that law to justify separating families at the border, but under George W. Bush and Barack Obama before him, 1325, along with illegal reentry — coming back after being deported — was already being used to jail and deport more and more immigrants. In fact, immigration-related crimes now make up the majority of all federal criminal prosecutions.
Castro’s proposal to repeal 1325 might have seemed to come out of left field, but it’s the exercise of the law that is historically the outlier: While laws criminalizing entry have existed since 1929, they “were largely ignored for a century,” the lawyer and scholar César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández reminds us in a new book, “Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession with Locking Up Immigrants.” In 1975, he noted “a mere 575 people” were charged with an immigration crime; in 1993, only 2,487. Contrast that with fiscal year 2018, when prosecutors brought 105,692 federal immigration charges.
T he criminalization of immigration, especially the scale at which it happens now, is a relatively recent trend, Hernández argues. And it ought to be reversed. His book joins a number of recent works that put contemporary immigration politics in the same light that scholars and activists have shone on mass incarceration — showing it to be a phenomenon inextricably linked to the history of land, race, and capitalism in the United States. “The immigration prison is a reminder that human bondage based on racial and economic markers of undesirability can’t be relegated to some distant past,” Hernández writes. “If we’re willing to lock people up, we’ll find a reason. Most of the time the targets will be people of color. We can call this coincidence, but we would be lying to ourselves.”
Hernández lays out in a lucid, linear fashion the evolution of immigration law and its enforcement in the United States, from laws restricting the movement of certain people across state lines — formerly enslaved people, for instance — to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first in a series of acts that barred Asian immigrants for decades.
Any history of how the notion of “illegality” in migration took root has to consider the experience of Mexicans. While the first U.S. immigration laws focused with explicit racism on excluding Asians, Mexicans were the ones often physically targeted by Border Patrol — harassed, removed, or allowed to pass to satisfy the desires of powerful Southwest planters. In Hernández’s words, Border Patrol “detained and deported their way to a scared workforce.” Many of those workers, whether unauthorized or sanctioned under the bracero program, which ran from 1942 to 1964, were rendered “illegal” by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which got rid of national quotas and more or less established the United States’ current immigration regime, wherein countries are allotted a certain number of visas. Though ostensibly a progressive measure doing away with the racist quotas and nationality bans of previous eras, when it came to Mexico, the act, also known as Hart-Celler, ignored the closeness of the nations and subjected Mexicans to a national cap nowhere near high enough to accommodate traditional migration levels. “Perversely, the Hart-Celler Act’s formal equality turned immigration law against Mexican migrants,” Hernández writes. Mexicans became “illegal,” and “illegal aliens” became racially coded as Mexican.
Its focus on detention sets Hernández’s book apart from other recent histories of immigration and the border, including Kelly Lytle Hernández’s history of the Border Patrol; “Undocumented Lives: The Untold Story of Mexican Migration,” by Ana Raquel Minian; and Greg Grandin’s “The End of Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America.” Early immigration prisons were “atrocious” “dockside facilities,” like a two-story wooden shed on the San Francisco wharf run by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, where Chinese migrants waited to be approved entry by U.S. officials. Ironically, it was to address these terrible conditions in company-run centers that the federal government got involved, creating facilities like Ellis Island in the New York Harbor, which opened in 1892, and Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. For the first time, Congress required inspection officers “to detain anyone not ‘clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission,’” César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández writes in “Migrating to Prison.” In 1896, the Supreme Court “emphatically declared that immigration imprisonment was constitutionally permissible.”
Yet it was a relatively brief experiment. By 1954, under Dwight D. Eisenhower, Immigration and Naturalization Service (the precursor to today’s immigration agencies) “had all but abandoned its detention policy.” Ellis Island shut down with little fanfare. Hernández concludes that, “in fact if not in law, the United States came remarkably close to abolishing immigration imprisonment.” While that was, in the words of the attorney general at the time, a step in the direction of “humane administration of the immigration laws,” it was also self-interested, Hernández notes. Immigration prisons were costly, and, as has been the case throughout U.S. history, businesses wanted migrants out of prison so they could be used as cheap labor.
Again, Hernández connects this history to that of incarceration writ large in the U.S. There was a time when, even within Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, the utility of prison was questioned. But the ’70s ushered in a politically orchestrated crime panic, and the war on drugs, which led to mandatory minimum prison terms and sentencing disparities for powder cocaine and crack. A parallel process played out with immigration. Migrants, like black Americans, were linked to drugs, crime, and unrest, and portrayed as leeches on government services.
In the 1980s and ’90s, legislation introduced new levels of criminality for immigrants, which in turn expanded the population of imprisoned people. As Hernández writes, “Congress denied immigration judges the discretion to release anyone convicted of an aggravated felony,” which includes serious offenses like murder but also shoplifting and tax fraud. Detention and deportation, once decided with considerable discretion, became mandatory for all sorts of offenses. The link between mass incarceration and immigrant incarceration is clear in the legislative history: The same 1986 law that created mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine created “detainers,” requests to local police to hold someone in jail until they can be picked up by immigration. Liberals were complicit too. As Grandin notes, Bill Clinton played a key role, signing “a number of extremely punitive crime, terrorism, and immigration bills into law, which created the deportation regime that exists today.”
Muslims and other immigrants from majority-Muslim countries suffered the racist expansion of immigration detention after September 11, 2001, as counterterrorism enveloped immigration into the ballooning national security apparatus. And, as with the incarceration of U.S. citizens, black migrants have been disproportionately impacted by the shift to “crimmigration,” as scholars call it — more likely to be detained for a crime, and more likely to be removed.
Considering the recent explosion in immigration detention, Hernández explores federal contracts with local law enforcement and private prison companies. He looks not just at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement but also the U.S. Marshals Service, which holds some 60,000 people a day in pre-trial detention, making deals with state and local jails around the country (the deaths of immigrants in Marshals custody were recently investigated by Seth Freed Wessler for Mother Jones). Again, the degree to which immigration offenses dominate the criminal justice system is stark — in 2013, marshals detained 97,982 people on immigration crimes, compared with 28,323 drug defendants. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, under the Department of Health and Human Services, had 49,000 children in custody in 2018, in “shelters” that range in comforts offered but which are all tightly controlled. Whatever agency officially holds them, Hernández argues, “to the migrants who are under constant surveillance and whose liberty has been denied there is little difference.”
Detention is also used with the idea that it will dissuade people from coming. Although Hernández points out this is legally suspect — detention of asylum-seekers and people accused of other non-criminal immigration offenses is not supposed to be a punishment — multiple administrations have invoked deterrence as a reason to keep people locked up.
Trying to separate immigrants who deserve imprisonment and those who don’t, distinguishing between shelters and detention centers and jails, obscures the workings of the whole system, Hernández says, which is designed to punish people for nothing more than being born in the wrong place. “Migrants are expected to live out the exceptionalism that U.S. citizens imagine in themselves,” he writes. The legal immigration system rewards wealth, education, and family connections, while the immigration enforcement system has no tolerance for human error.
Daniel Denvir’s forthcoming book, “All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It,” complements Hernández’s by focusing on political history. He, too, traces the development of anti-immigrant sentiments and policies alongside anti-black ones, arguing that “resistance to desegregation, a white identity politics of racial grievance, mass incarceration, the war on terror: all were dedicated to a quixotic mission to keep dangerous others from crossing U.S. borders and to restrict the free movement of those inside them.”
Democrats likewise fell into the trap of demonizing “illegal immigrants” and “criminal aliens,” believing that by doing so they could protect legal immigration from hard-right restrictionists and defend themselves from soft-on-crime accusations (just as they’d attempted to do by jumping on the war-on-drugs bandwagon).
T he bipartisan embrace of immigration enforcement, Denvir argues, was the product of the elusive quest for so-called comprehensive immigration reform, which would combine a path to legalization for people already in the country with the liberalization of legal immigration — goals sought by immigrant rights groups and big business alike. In order to get it, Democrats and some Republicans, from Clinton through Bush and Obama, tried to appease nativists with promises of “border security,” miles of fencing, massive increases in the Border Patrol, and surveillance systems befitting a war zone. Each time, however, the nativists were not, in fact, appeased, crying “amnesty” and sabotaging the prospect of reform. “The long-term advantage,” of focusing on enforcement, Denvir writes, “would accrue to the Right, which was better positioned to link the immigrant threat to crime, welfare, black people and terrorism.” Trump’s attempt to demand funding for his pet wall in order to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program last year, was a repeat of the same pattern. In the end, Trump plowed ahead with construction (literally, through delicate desert ecosystems), and DACA’s fate remains unsettled.
Over time, the left flank of immigration activism has grown wary of both comprehensive immigration reform (finding those “reforms” incremental) and the attempt to distinguish “good” immigrants from “bad” ones. As Denvir notes, “lots of ‘good’ immigrants were being deported too. And how bad were the bad ones, given the vast number of individuals convicted of crimes in the carceral state?”
Hernández ends his book with the case for abolishing immigration detention, while admitting that few people have a specific vision for how to do it. Denvir ends with an analysis of an electorate that might be willing to try. As he puts it, “record deportations and a radicalizing racist right has triggered a revolt among the Democratic Party’s increasingly young and diverse base,” and Democrats under Trump have become “staunchly pro-immigrant” and “more hostile to enforcement.” Hernández also decides to see Trump’s hostility to immigrants not just as horror but also as opportunity. Has the bipartisan consensus of “immigration is a ‘problem’ that needs fixing” finally broken? Will Trump’s nativist wish list of anti-immigrant, anti-refugee policies permanently shift Democrats away from their position that enforcement is always necessary?
Decriminalization of entry and reentry is a start, as Denvir and Hernández advocate (among the remaining Democratic presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, and Andrew Yang have said they agree). Denvir also calls for downsizing the Border Patrol, destroying existing physical barriers, breaking up agreements between ICE and local law enforcement, and increasing opportunities for legal immigration, especially from Central America and Mexico. Hernández urges, on a personal and institutional level, divestment from private prison companies. Eliminating cash bail and giving every migrant the right to a lawyer would drastically increase their odds of success, as would case management — offering help with housing and legal assistance.
These types of measures might actually lead to better compliance with immigration law, satisfying the obsession with people migrating “the right way.” But they would not offer concessions to a nativist right that wants any and all nonwhite immigration restricted, and they would have to resist the scare tactics bent on tying immigrants to crime and the rhetoric of scarcity that will inevitably accompany an economic downturn and worsening climate conditions. The court cases challenging the most horrendous aspects of confinement in immigrant detention centers are important. But if radical changes come, Hernández writes, “it won’t be because the law demands it. It will be because people demand it.”
********************************
This is a study in how a motivated minority can shove bad and fiscally irresponsible policies down the throats of a complicit majority.
The legal, fiscal, and humanitarian arguments against the NAG are out there, but the Dems keep getting “sidetracked” by buying into the bogus concept that “hard line enforcement and a little cruelty” is a necessary “quid pro quo” for rational immigration reform. But, the truth is that no amount of repression, cruelty, and irrational enforcement will ever satisfy the White Nationalists who have taken over the GOP.
Maybe, rather than trying to appease the unappeasable, the Dems’ strategy needs to be getting 100% of Democrats out to vote and registering the large number of new and younger potential voters who don’t favor racially driven policies of unrelenting cruelty and wasteful immigration restrictionism.
“SITTING DUCKS” IN “UNSAFE THIRD COUNTRIES” — How The Supremes, The 9th Circuit, The 5th Circuit, & Other Complicit Federal Appellate Courts Aid & Abet The Trump Regime’s Human Rights Violations — Would The “Privileged Robed Ones” Take Due Process & The Rule Of Law More Seriously If It Were Their Kids & Grandkids Being Kidnapped & Held for Ransom For The “Crime” Of Seeking Protection Under U.S. Laws?
Robbie Whelan Mexico City Correspondent Wall Street Journal
Violence Plagues Migrants Under U.S. ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program
Migrants seeking shelter in the U.S. under Trump administration policy report rising numbers of kidnappings by criminal groups
NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico—Every morning, Lorenzo Ortíz, a Baptist pastor who lives in Texas, drives a 12-seat passenger van packed with food and blankets across the border to pick up migrants who have been dropped off in Mexico and ferry them to shelters.
His mission is to keep the migrants safe from organized crime groups that prowl the streets of this violent Mexican border town. Since the Trump administration began implementing its Migrant Protection Protocols program at the start of 2019—widely known as Remain in Mexico—some 54,000 migrants, mostly from Central America, have been sent back to northern Mexico to wait while their asylum claims are processed. Mexico’s government is helping implement it.
But in cities like Nuevo Laredo, migrants are sitting ducks. Over the years, thousands have reported being threatened, extorted or kidnapped by criminal groups, who prey upon asylum seekers at bus stations and other public spaces.
“Over the last year, it’s gotten really bad,” Mr. Ortíz said.
A typical scheme involves kidnapping migrants and holding them until a relative in the U.S. wires money, typically thousands of dollars, in ransom money. Gangs have also attacked shelters and even some Mexican clergy members who help migrants.
There have been 636 reported cases of kidnapping, rape, torture and other violent crimes against migrants returned to Mexico under Remain in Mexico, according to Human Rights First, which interviews victims in border cities and advocates for migrants’ due process rights. At least 138 of these incidents involved kidnappings of children.
Many more cases of extortion and violence go unreported for fear of retribution. As more migrants are returned to dangerous areas such as Nuevo Laredo under Remain in Mexico, the situation is expected to worsen, the nonprofit Human Rights First said in a recent report.
The Mexican government has played down the violence. Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard recently acknowledged kidnapping incidents, but said that “it’s not a massive number.” Only 20 such cases have been investigated by the government, he added.
The Trump administration has credited the program with deterring migrants from attempting to cross into the U.S. Monthly apprehensions of migrants at the U.S. Southern border have plunged from more than 144,000 in May to 33,500 in November. The Remain in Mexico program was expanded in June.
On a recent visit to the border, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said the program has been a “game-changer” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers because it has freed them from having to perform humanitarian duties.
But Mr. Ortíz’s daily commute back and forth over the border highlights what migrants’ advocates say is a key element of the program—it isolates migrants not only from the legal counsel they need to argue their asylum claims, but from resources like food, shelter and medical care that are abundant on the U.S. side, but near-nonexistent in Mexico.
“You have all this infrastructure to help feed and clothe and house people set up on this side, in Laredo and Del Rio and Eagle Pass, and then suddenly the administration changes the policy, and you have to send it all to Mexico, because now everyone is on the other side,” said Denise LaRock, a Catholic Sister who helps distribute donations to asylum seekers through the nonprofit Interfaith Welcome Coalition. Mexico has been unable to provide enough safe shelter and other resources to migrants.
In Matamoros, another large recipient of asylum seekers under the program across the border from Brownsville, Texas, a tent city of more than 3,000 people has sprung up. Migrants there have complained of overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and insufficient medical treatment. In November, a migrant from El Salvador was murdered in Tijuana, opposite San Diego, while waiting with his wife and two children for an asylum hearing under the Remain in Mexico program.
On a recent, briskly-cold Wednesday, Mr. Ortíz, dressed in a ski vest and a baseball cap with the logo of the U.S. Chaplain International Association, picked up six migrants, including two children aged 8 and 14, at the immigration office in Nuevo Laredo. All were from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, and were returning from legal appointments in the U.S. Hearings take place in makeshift courts set up in tents in Laredo, just across the bridge over the Rio Grande that separates the two cities.
At the front door of the office, six young men sat idly around a motorcycle, hats pulled low over their heads, watching the scene unfold, periodically walking up to the church van and peering in. Mr. Ortíz said these men were “hawks” or lookouts for criminal gangs.
“They know who I am, I know who they are,” he said. “You have to know everyone to do this work. The cartels respect the church. I’ve driven all around Nuevo Laredo in this van, full of migrants, and they never mess with me.”
At one point two of the lookouts asked the pastor for some food. He gave them two boxes of sandwich cookies. They clapped him on the shoulder, eating the treats as they walked back to their observation post.
Mr. Ortíz, a native of central Mexico, came to the U.S. at age 15 and eventually built a small contracting business in Texas. He became an ordained Baptist minister about a decade ago and three years ago began ministering to migrants full time. This year, he converted several rooms of his home in Laredo, Texas, into a dormitory for migrants and built men’s and women’s showers in his backyard.
After picking up the migrants, Mr. Ortíz ferried the group to an unmarked safe house with a chain-locked door on a busy street in the center of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
Inside, about 90 migrant families crowded into rows of cots set up in a handful of bedrooms and a concrete back patio. Among the Central Americans are also migrants from Peru, Congo, Haiti, Angola and Venezuela.
Reports of migrant kidnappings have increased since the Remain in Mexico program began, Mr. Ortíz said. In September, armed men stormed the safe house—one of two that the pastor brings migrants to—and detained the shelter’s staff for about an hour.
Since then, Mr. Ortíz said, the volunteer staff has stopped allowing migrants to leave the house unaccompanied, even to buy milk for young children at a nearby store.
Rosa Asencio, a schoolteacher fleeing criminal gangs in El Salvador and traveling with her two children ages 4 and 7, was returned to Nuevo Laredo under Remain in Mexico. She says she hasn’t been outside the shelter for nearly three weeks. “They can kidnap you anywhere,” she said.
María Mazariegos, an Honduran housekeeper, said she was kidnapped along with her 12-year-old daughter Alexandra from the bus station in Nuevo Laredo in September.
Gang members held her in a windowless cinder-block room that bore signs of torture for three days with one meal of tortillas and beans. She was released after her family members in the U.S. convinced her captors that they didn’t have the money to pay a ransom.
Then, two weeks later, while she was returning from a court appointment in the U.S., a shelter staff member confirmed, another group tried to kidnap her. An escort from the shelter was able to talk the kidnappers out of it.
She has court hearing under Remain in Mexico rules on Jan. 22, where a judge is expected to decide on her asylum case. If she is rejected, she plans to move to the Mexican city of Saltillo, where she has heard there are more jobs and less violence.
“Just about anywhere is better than here,” Ms. Mazariegos added.
These two quotes really tell you all you need know about this grotesquely immoral and illegal “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Program” (sometimes totally disingenuously referred to as the “Migrant Protection Protocols”) and the sleazy U.S. Government officials responsible for it:
There have been 636 reported cases of kidnapping, rape, torture and other violent crimes against migrants returned to Mexico under Remain in Mexico, according to Human Rights First, which interviews victims in border cities and advocates for migrants’ due process rights. At least 138 of these incidents involved kidnappings of children.
. . . .
On a recent visit to the border, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said the program has been a “game-changer” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers because it has freed them from having to perform humanitarian duties.
Let’s not forget that the Immigration “Court” system that has life or death power over these asylum claims has been twisted and “gamed” against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly women and children with brown skins, by the White Nationalist politicos who unconstitutionally control it. All this while the Article III appellate courts look the other way and “swallow the whistle” on protecting the legal and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us.
Let’s see, essentially: “It’s great program because it allows us to evade our humanitarian duties under humanitarian laws and concentrate on faux law enforcement directed against individuals who are not legitimate targets of law enforcement.” Doesn’t say much for the legal and moral authority of the Article III, life-tenured judges who think this is acceptable for our country.
Obviously, this has less to do with the law, which is clearly against what the “regime” is doing, or legitimate law enforcement, which has little to do with the vast majority of legal asylum seekers, and lots to do with vulnerable, brown-skinned individuals desperately seeking justice being “out of sight, out of mind” to the exalted, tone-deaf Article III Judges who are failing to do their Constitutional duties. “Going along to get along” appears to be the new mantra of far too many of the Article III appellate judges.
Assuming that our republic survives and that “Good Government” eventually returns to both the Executive and the Legislative Branches, an examination of the catastrophic failure of the Article III Judiciary to effectively stand up for the Constitutional, legal, and individual human rights of asylum seekers obviously needs reexamination and attention.
The glaring lack of legal expertise in asylum, immigration, and human rights laws as well as basic Constitutional Due Process, and the total lack of human empathy among far, far too many Article III appellate jurists is as stunning as it is disturbing! The past is the past; but, we can and should learn from it. At some point, if we are to survive as a nation of laws and humane values, we need a radically different and more courageous Article III Judiciary that puts humanity and human rights first, not last!
The “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Program” will not go down in history as a “law enforcement success” as Wolf-man and the other Trump regime kakistocrats and their enablers and apologists claim; it eventually will take its place as one of the most disgraceful and cowardly abandonments of American values in our history. And, the role of the complicit Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges who turned their backs on our asylum laws, our Constitution, and human decency will also be spotlighted!
As I was “indexing” this article, I “scrolled through” the name and thought of my old friend the late Arthur Helton, a courageous humanitarian, lawyer, teacher, role model, and occasional litigation opponent (during my days at the “Legacy INS”). Arthur, who literally gave his life for others and his steadfastly humane view of the law, was a believer in the “fundamental justice” of the American judicial system. I wonder what he would think if he were alive today to see the cowardly and complicit performance of so many Article III appellate judges, all the way up to and including the Supremes, in the face of the unlawful, unconstitutional, institutionalized evil, hate, and tyranny of our current White Nationalist regime.
For reference purposes, the average grant rate for FY 2018 and FY 2019 was 33% and 29%, respectively.
******************
Go to the link for complete individual Immigration Judge asylum stats.
The idea that a “court” system is providing “fair and impartial” decisions toasylum seekers by advancing to important appellate positions biased, obviously unqualified, anti-asylum “jurists”with grant rates that are a small fraction of the already artificially and unethically suppressed “national average” is a total fraud — a grotesque national disgrace rivaled only by the gutless Article III judges who have allowed and encouraged this to happen on their watch!
Somewhat remarkably, after three years of concerted efforts to “zero out” asylum grants, including gimmicks like illegally and unethically rewriting asylum law to screw refugees, denying the statutory and Constitutional right to counsel, using coercive and punitive detention, abusive criminal prosecutions, and family separation to coerce asylum seekers into giving up viable claims, production quotas encouraging rote asylum denials, packing the Immigration Courts with appointees from enforcement backgrounds, and stacking the BIA with anti-asylum zealots, the overall asylum grant rate is still 29%.
That suggests that under a fair and impartial judicial system asylum seekerscould and should succeed in the vast majority of cases. With no material improvements in worldwide refugee-creating conditions, and indeed a record number of refugees fleeing oppression, there is no bona fide explanation for how grant rates would go from 43% in FY 2016 to 29% in FY 2019 without any legislative changes. And, let’s be clear: the 43% in 2016 was already artificially suppressed from 56% in FY 2012. Even the 2012 rate was unrealistically low. A realistic grant rate under a properly generous application of asylum law probably would have been in the 70%-80% range.
The answer is obvious: Government fraud and misfeasance in asylum adjudication on a massive scale, motivated by a White Nationalist, racist, nativist political agenda that clearly violates both the asylum laws and our Constitution. And, this doesn’t even take into account the many asylum seekers artificially denied access to the system at all through the “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico Program,” and ludicrously illegal and fraudulent “Safe Third Country” agreements with patently unsafe and corrupt failed states.
Yet, while it’s all happening in plain view, indeed touted by Stephen Miller and other racist officials, the Article III Courts of Appeals and the Supremeshave taken a dive. They are are allowing the “Second Coming of Jim Crow” to unfold before their eyes, every day, without taking the strong, courageous judicial actions necessary to preserve Due Process and fundamental fairness and to “just say no” to the overt racism driving anti-asylum policies.
Sure, the stock market is up and we’re essentially at full employment. But, that really has little or nothing to do with justice, morality, values, and the rule of law. Eventually, the inevitable economic cycles will turn again.
With social justice, integrity, the rule of law, and our republic in shambles, how will the Article IIIs and the other cowardly enablers justify their roles and dereliction of their duty to stand up for the rights of the most vulnerable among us? And, who will stand up for them and their rights when the anti-American forces driving Trumpism decide that these toady judges’ complicit role is no longer essential to the planned destruction of American democracy?
In INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 452 (1987), Justice Blackmun, in his concurring opinion, cautioned:
“The efforts of these courts stand in stark contrast to — but, it is sad to say, alone cannot make up for — the years of seemingly purposeful blindness by the INS, which only now begins its task of developing the standard entrusted to its care.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 452 (1987).
Unfortunately, after years of progress under Administrations with more integrity and intellectual honesty, the interpretation and application of U.S. asylum law is now in, perhaps terminal, regression under this corrupt and intellectually dishonest White Nationalist regime and the kakistocracy it has constructed within the immigration bureaucracy, including the parody of justice and Due Process that takes place daily in the Immigration “Courts.”
Even more tragically, this time around the Supremes and the Article III Circuit Courts, far from being part of the solution and fearless defenders of the rule of law and the rights of vulnerable asylum seekers, have become a key part of the “purposeful blindness” feeding and driving the problem — in effect, “slaughtering the innocents.” By their complicity and fecklessness, they are ripping apart our system of justice and our established constitutional order. I’m sure that Justice Blackmun would be both horrified and outraged by the institutional cowardice and dereliction of duty by his black-robed, life tenured successors.
Due Process Forever; Corrupt, Complicit Federal Courts Never!
As the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which has been a symbol of liberty and freedom from oppression for 2,000 years approaches, 25 Jewish members of Congress, all Democrats, have signed a letter demanding the resignation of Donald Trump’s main architect of oppression and persecution against nonwhite immigrants. This is even as Miller is reportedly preparing a new secret plan to inflict more appalling cruelty and violations of basic human rights against detained immigrant children because he objects to the color of their skin.
For more on the Congressional members’ letter, which was in reaction to the shocking revelation of Miller’s almost 1,000 recent extremist white supremacist anti-immigrant emails, see CNN (December 20):
The letter, addressed to Donald Trump (who will now forever be known as the third president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives) states in part:
“As Jewish members of Congress, we are calling on you to immediately relieve White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller of all government responsibilities and to dismiss him from your administration…His documentation of white nationalist and virulently anti-immigrant tropes is wholly unacceptable and disqualifying for a government employee.”
But even as the above letter was written a news item has now come to light about a secret new policy that Miller has reportedly launched that will make it harder for detained immigrant children to be released by ICE to the custody of family members or friends who are willing to come forward to take custody of them.
This vicious new policy represents a new low in the appalling cruelty that Trump and Miller have shown toward young children whom Trump and Miller do not think should be welcome in the US because, as Trump reportedly said almost two years ago (in January 2018), they are not from “Countries like Norway.”
Details of Miller’s plan, which has not been publicly announced are contained in a December 20 Washington Post article entitled:
Under secret Stephen Miller plan, ICE to use data on migrant children to expand deportation efforts
The Post reports that senior officials at the Department of Health and Human Services:
“…agreed to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to collect fingerprints and other biometric information from adults seeking to claim children at migrant shelters. If these adults are deemed ineligible to take custody of children, ICE could then use their information to target them for arrest and deportation.”
The Post;s report also shows that this appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump-Miller regime to defy the intention of Congress, in keeping with the virtual dictatorship over immigration policy that America’s third president to be impeached by the House (and the second for abuse of power) is imposing under the authoritarian “unitary executive” theory which directly conflicts with the Constitution and with our basic principles of democracy.
The Post report states:
“The arrangement appears to circumvent laws that restrict the use of the refugee program for deportation enforcement. Congress has made clear that it does not want those who come forward as potential sponsors of minors in U.S. custody to be frightened away by potential deportation.”
But this is precisely what Stephen Miller is attempting to do, according to the above report.
How ironic that this appalling attack against children in pursuit of the Trump-Miller administration’s racial immigration agenda came to light just before the Hanukkah holiday This holiday, which began this year on the evening of December 22, celebrates the heroic resistance of the Maccabees, Jewish freedom fighters, against an oppressive ruler, Antiochus, king of Syria, in 169 B.C.
Rabbi Sid Schwarz explains the meaning of Hanukkah as follows:
“Hanukkah is the Jewish festival of religious liberty and freedom.”
But Hanukkah stands for more than just freedom of religious persecution – such as Donald Trump instituted within days after taking office ac president by imposing his Muslim ban – a blatant violation of the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom which should have immediately led to impeachment proceedings at that time.
As Rabbi Schwarz also writes concerning the tradition that a small amount of oil for the temple lamp lasted for eight days, Hanukkah is also a celebration of Human Rights in general:
“Whether one believes literally in the miracle of the high-octane oil, on a spiritual level Hanukkah is about a much bigger miracle. It is the miracle of faith conquering fear. of the few overcoming the many, of liberty winning out over oppression.
Hanukkah falls close to Human Rights Day which we celebrate every year on December 10. We ignore this day at our peril. The date was based on the 1948 ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the general Assembly of the United Nations.
Enshrines in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are principles at the core of democracy: the right to life, liberty and security of person; equal justice before the law; protection against cruel and degrading forms of punishment…”
www.rabbisid.org/hanukkah-and-human-rights/
What could be a more cruel and degrading practice than keeping young children incarcerated while intimidating their parents or other family members against coming to pick them up because of fear of being deported? It would be hard to imagine any greater form of deliberate sadism.
Therefore I would like to make the following proposal to Stephen Miller, the great grandson of an impecunious early 20th century Jewish immigrant who would without any question be barred from entry to the US under Miller’s own vastly expanded Public Charge rules (if they ever go into effect).
I would ask Miller, who seems to be totally oblivious to the history of persecution and exclusion that Jewish immigrants were subjected to by the US government for much of the 20th century, including the 1930’s and 1940’s at the time of their most desperate need, whether he would be willing to agree to the following proposal:
If Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, who claims to be a great friend of the Jewish people and whose own daughter and son-in-law are Jewish, are unwilling to abandon their inhuman and arguably illegal practice of frightening parents or other relatives of detained immigrant children from coming to pick them up and arrange their release, through fear of action by ICE, would Trump and Miller be willing to suspend this barbaric practice for at least the eight days of Hanukkah as a gesture of good will, and in the spirit of the holiday?
Or would that be too much to ask?
With the above thoughts, I wish all readers a Happy Hanukkah and a very Merry Christmas.
************************************
Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
At the time when President Barack Obama instituted DACA, there was a warning from the opposition side that one day, under a different president, DACA might make it easier rather than harder to deport immigrants registering for that program. The reasoning was that by registering for DACA, millions of unauthorized immigrants would be providing the government with personal information which could later be used against them for deportation purposes.
However, the fact that DACA information might later on be misused by a future malevolent president for a purpose opposite the the one intended was certainly no reason for scrapping the entire program. At least it is unlikely that the 800,000 immigrants who are now benefiting from DACA would agree. Almost any action that is taken with regard to immigration might have results in the future different from those initially contemplated.
To give an example of a different immigration program, at the time that Trump instituted the Muslim ban executive orders, supporters of the ban didn’t seem to realize that if a current president were given the power to defy the guarantee of religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution by banning immigrants from Muslim countries, a future president whose bigotry might run in a different direction form Trump’s bigotry, might use the same power to ban Jewish immigrants from Israel, or to ban Catholic immigrants from Europe (as was in fact done in the 1924 immigration law..
In any event, warnings about possible misuse of DACA in the future were not taken seriously, because at the time that he announced the termination of DACA, Trump put out the line that, of course, he would never dream of doing anything as nasty as actually deporting DACA recipients. Later on, during Supreme Court argument on DACA, Chief Justice Roberts bought into these assurances hook, line, and sinker, as Frank Sharry of America’s Voice describes in a December 23 press release entitled:
Chief Justice Roberts, You were wrong. Trump does want to deport DACA recipients
Sharry quotes Roberts during the Supreme Court’s oral argument on DACA as saying:
“…the whole thing [about DACA] was about work authorization and these other benefits. Both administrations have said that they’re not going to deport the people.”
Now, with a December 21 CNN report that the Trump-Miller administration is moving to reopen previously closed deportation cases against DACA recipients who have no or only minor criminal records, Trump’s assurances are turning out to be a hollow, if not actually fraudulent, as so many of his other statements on immigration have been.
For this reason, Roberts was either in denial, as Frank Sharry asserts, or was being misled by the Trump administration about the real issue involved in DACA. See CNN:
Is this about-face (one might call it turncoat action) by Trump and Miller the fault of former president Barack Obama? That would seem to be an example of convoluted, if not Orwellian, reasoning at best – the idea being that a president who saved neatly a million immigrants from deportation through DACA really hurt them instead, while a different president who is actually threatening to deport them has no responsibility for this action.
CNN reports as follows:
“ICE confirmed to CNN that DACA recipients whose deportation cases have been administratively closed can expect to see them reopened. In an email, the agency states that ‘re-calendaring of administratively closed cases is occurring nationwide and not isolated to a particular state or region.'”
The same CNN report also states:
“The move to reopen deportation cases against Dreamers comes as the US Supreme Court considers whether to let the Trump administration end the program – and during oral arguments in November, at least some justices made it clear that they were accepting the president’s assurances that ending DACA would not mean deporting Dreamers.”
The only possible conclusion is that the Trump administration either deliberately misled the Supreme Court, whose Chief Justice and, as CNN also mentions, other justices as well, relied on its assurance that no Dreamers would be deported; or else that the no deportation assurance is now “inoperative” (to use a famous expression from the Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal).
The above raises a few questions:
1) Is this act of outright deception (worst case) or sleight of hand (at best) on the part of the Trump administration with regard to its intention to deport Dreamers if DACA is terminated the fault of former President Obama?
2) Full information about Dreamers whose deportation cases were closed was already known to the government at the time that President Obama established DACA. Otherwise, the deportation cases would not have been started in the first place. How could establishing DACA and closing their cases have put these deportation respondents at any greater risk than they already were subject to?
3) President Obama established DACA to try to save the “Dreamers” from being deported. Donald Trump is now trying to end DACA in order to deport them. If they are eventually deported, will that be President Obama’s fault? That kind of argument could only come out of a George Orwell novel.
4) Finally, we must ask, why is it so important to the Trump and Miller administration to deport the “Dreamers”? To answer that question, we need look no further than Miller’s recently revealed almost 1,000 emails contending that non-white immigrants are not welcome in the United States, with or without legal status.
Deporting 800,000 “Dreamers” would be only one part of Miller’s drive to accomplish this sweeping, white supremacist agenda, which would take America back to the 1924 Europeans-only immigration regime that Miller reportedly holds up as his ideal in the above mentioned emails, and which has very arguably become the basis of the Trump administration’s entire immigration agenda.
As The Atlantic states regarding Miller’s recently revealed immigration related emails (November, 2019):
” That Miller himself possesses a Jewish background is no obstacle to his believing that the racist and anti-Semitic restrictions of the 1920’s were a great achievement and that the law that repealed them was a great tragedy. These comments shed a great deal of light on Miller’s motives in shaping administration policy.”
Nothing could be clearer about who will be responsible for deporting up to 800,000 Dreamers if Chief Justice Roberts and the other Supreme Court “conservatives” buy into the Trump administration’s worthless assurances that the Dreamers will be safe from deportation even if DACA is terminated.
The president responsible for that exercise in ethnic cleansing will not be named Barack Obama.
Thanks, Roger, for sharing your thoughts and for “telling it like it is!”
It’s pretty obvious that Solicitor General Noel Francisco lied to the Supremes about the Dreamers’ fate! He also misrepresented the dire consequences of depriving them of employment authorization and other aspects of being allowed to reside here “under color of law” as opposed to just “not being removed.” That’s in addition to his mental gymnastics of substituting a non-existent “policy” rationale (hint, there is no legitimate policy rationale for dumping on the Dreamers) for the original “bogus legal rationale” put forth by Sessions.
It’s by no means the first time that DOJ lawyers have lied to or mislead Federal Courts about immigration policies and the motives for actions by the Trump regime. How about the “Census Case,” providing bogus rationales for the Travel Ban, reprogramming money for “the Wall” based on a fabricated “national emergency,” denying the existence of a child separation program, claiming that reuniting children was “too difficult,” the “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” program, or papering over Session’s nativist bias and motives for the “A-B- Atrocity,” to name just a few of the more obvious and egregious ones? Essentially, it’s like claiming that “poll taxes” were about “raising revenue” or that “separate” was “equal.”
For most lawyers, lack of candor to a Federal Court would be a serious matter, putting their licenses to practice law at risk. Why are Francisco and the rest of his merry band at DOJ, all the way up to Barr and Sessions before him, exempt from the normal rules of ethics and professional conduct? Why do the Supremes continue to reward his dishonesty by time and again granting his largely frivolous requests to “short circuit” normal judicial procedures and get an immediate audience with the Supremes?
Since Trump and “Moscow Mitch” are stacking the Article III Judiciary with what they believe to be reliable Trump sycophants, it probably would be a mistake to think that “equal justice for all” will reappear in the Article IIIs any time soon.
On this week’s episode of Amicus, Slate’s podcast about the Supreme Court, Dahlia Lithwick was joined by Kristin Clarens, an attorney with Project Adelante, a group of multidisciplinary professionals, including lawyers, doctors, ministers, and psychologists, working across the country to help mobilize and concentrate support for asylum-seekers at the border. A transcript of the interview, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, follows.
Dahlia Lithwick: Can you just start by explaining what it is that you do and how as a lawyer you were able to kind of amble in and out of border facilities, detention facilities?
Kristin Clarens: People who previously would have been detained [in the U.S.] are now living in sort of makeshift refugee camps on the Mexico side of the border because of the “Remain in Mexico” policy. So now it’s incredibly easy to amble in and out, as easy as it is for the cartel members and other organized criminals who are circulating in these camps.
The Remain in Mexico policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols, is just about a year old. Can you describe what the world was like before it, what the world has been like since?
The estimates are that there are around 3,000 people [in the tent camp in Matamoros] living just in squalor and in tents, and that 80 percent of them are families with young children. A year ago, in the Rio Grande Valley, most of those people would come to the United States either after asking for permission at a port of entry or after crossing without permission and they would be apprehended, put into one of the temporary facilities that so many of us have seen on the news with the kids in cages and the very overcrowded conditions, lack of sanitation and medical care. After that, the families and young kids were sent to longer-term detention centers where many of us, many lawyers who speak Spanish, have worked across the country.
As of June or July of this year, the United States government started implementing something that they call, I think very ironically, the Migrant Protection Protocols, which is a policy guideline that says that border patrol agents are able to return asylum-seekers to Mexico for the duration of their immigration hearings. So now an asylum-seeker who comes up from Central America arrives in these incredibly sketchy and stressful border towns, asks for asylum at the port of entry, and after a quick trip to one of the cage facilities, they are sent back into the streets of Mexico.
That moment where they’re shoved back into Mexican territory from the U.S. officials is an incredibly vulnerable one. It’s kind of like bad guys lurking on the sides.
Now that you’re looking at the tent cities in Mexico, what kinds of things are you seeing, what kinds of legal aid are you able to provide if you are in Matamoros trying to help?
The legal aid that we’re able to provide at this point is becoming so much more limited because the statistics out now are that 0.1 percent of asylum-seekers who have their cases heard in the MPP courts—many of whom have valid claims, who would have succeeded with time and due process and legal support—0.1 percent are succeeding. Nothing has changed with respect to the nature of the cases—single women who have been persecuted specifically because they’re vulnerable in their home countries by gangs and by other types of organized crime. They’re incredibly vulnerable living in these—it’s just like a tent, the kind of tent that you would take to go camping in the woods in the summer. Except for single women—sometimes pregnant with young children with no other form of support, no network whatsoever—living for months at a time in freezing cold conditions in rain and in superhot conditions the next day, just incredibly exposed on every single level.
The circumstances change almost weekly with respect to the parameters and expectations, the due process provided in the MPP camp, and also, with respect to just the feasibility of [the legal support] we can offer as the numbers of people on the ground grow and the backlog increases in the MPP courts.
The camp facility where people are sort of constrained physically has somewhere between 2,600 and 3,000 people in it at any given day, and it’s growing. But the total number of people who’ve been returned to Mexico under MPP is closer to 68,000. So only a small fraction of the people who need legal services are even visible at this point.
On the ground and at least at Matamoros, people don’t have enough showers, they don’t have enough food. There’s rampant illness. I mean, you are seeing kids with tremendous medical and nutritional and other needs that are not getting that.
There’s sort of a group that’s come onto the scene over the past month that’s providing mobile health care via a clinic and also a humanitarian support to try and improve the shelters. They’re all volunteer based. It’s kind of all of us rolling up our sleeves and trying to figure out the best way to get support in there. But it’s subject essentially to the whims of the Mexican government. At any point, this could be shut down, or relocated, or people could just be forced to scatter. You just don’t know how things are going to unfold when the United States government’s policies might be enjoined, or when the Mexican government may decide that it can no longer tolerate these large refugee camps.
“How many 7-year-old girls would need to die for this to be something that would get in the headlines and stay in the headlines for a day or two?”
— Kristin Clarens
The Mexican government initially restricted humanitarian groups’ access to sort of building things like toilets and showers and did so themselves in Matamoros. But the facilities that they built were really not adequate. They have showers that are not linked to any sort of drainage systems so there’s just big puddles of disgusting water that smelled bad and it’s just really kind of dehumanizing. Prior to the existence of the showers though, people were bathing in the river, which is contaminated with human waste, and people were getting sick and these awful skin infections all over. Little kids were swimming in the same place where little kids were also vomiting and having diarrhea. It’s just kind of a recipe for humanitarian crisis, within 100 feet of an American city.
You’ve been dealing this week with a critically ill child.
It’s really difficult for people who could die at any minute of their illnesses to get medical care in Matamoros for a variety of reasons. It’s hard for them to get around. It’s a scary city and it’s not safe. And so, this past week, we heard about several more critically ill migrants waiting at the tent city, including a 7-year-old who had, I think it can best be described as, sort of a breach in her abdominal wall.
So her fecal matter was leaking out and kind of reinfecting her, kind of getting reabsorbed by parts of her body as she wasn’t able to access clean water or water at all, to drink or to bathe herself to prevent just massive infection that could really quickly turn to a life-and-death situation. So, we did the best we could. I’ve been on the bridge trying to cross with people and been kind of mistreated and treated aggressively by the Border Patrol agents, and I know how scary and hard that is. I can’t imagine having gotten that experience as a 7-year-old girl who has to wear a diaper because her stomach is no longer able to contain her intestines. Fortunately, she was able to cross after, I think, a collective eight or nine hours waiting on the bridge and advocating and negotiating with Border Patrol. She was able to get across and get to the hospital on Tuesday night.
I had to try to twist your arm to get you to come talk about her story, because nobody died so it feels like nobody is going to care?
That’s the sense that I get in trying to focus attention on this in such a stressful time in America. It seems scary. Our government is unstable and stressful right now, and at the same time, these incredible egregious human rights violations are happening at our Southern border. And it’s like, how do we cut through this noise and really stand up for the weakest people that our country is negatively impacting right now? And I don’t have those answers, but we keep wondering, how many 7-year-old girls would need to die for this to be something that would get in the headlines and stay in the headlines for a day or two?
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts
Divided Realities
Lawyers on the crisis at the border, and a cacophony of bad faith in the Capitol.
01:10:57
SHARESUBSCRIBECOOKIE POLICY
<audio title=”Trump’s Tent Cities Are on the Verge of Killing Immigrant Children” src=”https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SLT7575031485.mp3″ class=”slate-megaphone__audio-player” tabindex=”0″ preload=”metadata” controls></audio> <iframe title=”Trump’s Tent Cities Are on the Verge of Killing Immigrant Children” src=”https://player.megaphone.fm/SLT7575031485?light=true” frameborder=”no” height=”200″ scrolling=”no” width=”100%”></iframe> VIEW TRANSCRIPT
Support our independent journalism
Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary and criticism you won’t find anywhere else.
As the article points out, vulnerable refugees with valid asylum claims that might well have been granted prior to the Trump White Nationalist kakistocracy are now being railroaded without legal representation or any semblance of fairness, impartiality, or due process.
Another way of putting Kristin Clarens’s very valid concerns: “How many seven-year old girls would have to die before complicit, tone-deaf, life-tenured Supreme Court Justices and Article III Appellate Judges take off their blinders, get out of their ivory towers, stop kowtowing to Trump and the forces of White Nationalist darkness and evil, and start seeing Trump’s victims as human beings, or even as their own children or grandchildren?”
Thank goodness for courageous, talented, dedicated folks like Kristin who represent the “True Spirit of Christmas” in an age where kindness, compassion, mercy, and justice have been forgotten and are daily being trampled by the regime, its supporters, and enablers.
NYT: The new rule, issued by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, would expand the list of crimes that bar migrants from asylum to include misdemeanor offenses, including driving under the influence, possession of fake identification and drug possession, including having more than 30 grams of of marijuana… The administration would also deny asylum to migrants caught crossing the border after receiving a deportation order and those who illegally received public benefits.
WaPo: The White House sought this month to embed immigration enforcement agents within the U.S. refugee agency that cares for unaccompanied migrant children, part of a long-standing effort to use information from their parents and relatives to target them for deportation, according to six current and former administration officials.
WSJ: Guatemala is set to finalize within days a deal to expand its asylum agreement with the U.S. to begin accepting Mexican migrants sent from the southern U.S. border, U.S. and Guatemalan officials familiar with the talks said.
WaPo: An estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration that has fueled a bitter policy debate but has been largely overshadowed by President Trump’s border wall fight and the administration’s focus on migrant crossings from Mexico.
Quartz: Social media tracking, Increased denaturalization efforts, Expansion of “public charge” definition, Domestic violence no longer grounds for asylum, Limits to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Secret policies.
WGBH: Concerns are growing as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers a legal motion filed by a private group to cancel the federal program.
USA Today: A USA TODAY Network investigation revealed sex assaults, routine use of physical force, poor medical care and deaths at facilities overseen by ICE.
TRAC: MPP Results in Slightly Longer Wait Times for First Hearing…Asylum Seekers in the US are 7 Times More Likely to Have an Attorney…Most Asylum Seekers Attend Their Hearings Unless Forced to Remain in Mexico.
On 12/10/19, former immigration judges sent a letter to EOIR requesting that it investigate violations of due process rights during MPP hearings and ensure that the public has appropriate access to all immigration courts. AILA Doc. No. 19121700
Susan F. Aikman, Immigration Judge, Batavia Immigration Court
Jennifer Chung, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
Diane L. Dodd, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
David A. Norkin, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick Immigration Court (yes, former court administrator)
John J. Siemietkowski, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
Rantideva Singh, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
New Permanent ACIJ at New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court
EOIR: Effective January 20, ACIJ Carrie Johnson will be the permanent ACIJ for the New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court. ACIJ Johnson is currently the ACIJ for the Newark and Elizabeth Immigration Courts and will remain in those positions. ACIJ Sheila McNulty will continue to serve as the Acting ACIJ for the New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Fishkill, and Ulster Immigration Courts.
Intercept: In this case, ICE used Thomson Reuters’s controversial CLEAR database, part of a growing industry of commercial data brokers that contract with government agencies, essentially circumventing barriers that might prevent the government from collecting certain types of information. See also California DOJ Cuts Off ICE Deportation Officers from State Law Enforcement Database.
Reuters: The pathway to citizenship – even for a relatively small cohort of immigrants – is a victory for pro-migrant activists and lawmakers who pushed for citizenship for Liberians covered by temporary deportation relief programs.
Bloomberg: The 30-day limitations period for an immigrant to appeal an order requiring him to be removed from the U.S. isn’t jurisdictional, and thus may be equitably tolled, the Second Circuit said Dec. 19.
USCIS updated its policy manual to clarify the effect of travel abroad by TPS beneficiaries with final removal orders. Per USCIS, TPS beneficiaries who depart and return to the U.S. based on authorization to travel remain in the exact same immigration status and circumstances as when they left. AILA Doc. No. 19122036
NYLJ: U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York said the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James and Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez raised valid claims that the practice could have deleterious effects on the criminal justice system.
SCOTUSblog: The justices will decide whether a noncitizen who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation – such as asylum or cancellation of removal – when the state-court record is ambiguous about whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
WaPo: Organizations critical of President Trump’s immigration policies filed a broad lawsuit Thursday challenging new restrictions for green-card seekers who may need government help to pay for food and health care…It seeks to block the State Department from moving forward with its public-charge rules, and specifically singles out Trump’s October decree — titled “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” — requiring green-card applicants to have “approved” medical coverage or sufficient resources to pay for their medical costs out of pocket.
AP: The lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Washington, D.C., and Innovation Law Lab of Portland, Oregon, said that instead of being fair and impartial, judges in immigration courts answer to Attorney General Robert Barr and are pushed to deny applications for asylum.
DOJ and DHS issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum for individuals who commit certain criminal offenses in the U.S. The proposed rule would also remove provisions regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. AILA Doc. No. 19121835
The Trump administration announced the opening of an office to focus on identifying immigrants who are suspected of cheating to get their green cards or citizenship and will seek to denaturalize these individuals. Watch this page for updates and resources from AILA. AILA Doc. No. 18072705
USCIS provided Q&As from its December 10, 2019, engagement on the recent Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) adopted AAO decisions and the corresponding policy manual update. AILA Doc. No. 19122002
ICE and the Mexican Ministry of the Interior announced the continuation of the Interior Repatriation Initiative. The first 2019 repatriation flight of approximately 150 Mexican nationals departed Tucson International Airport on December 19, 2019. AILA Doc. No. 19122000
Note that DOJ/EOIR rally outdid themselves on Immigration Judge appointments with 27 “Government insiders,” most from DHS or other enforcement backgrounds, and only one “outside” appointment from private practice. As one of my Round Table colleagues quipped: “I guess they must have run out of ICE Assistant Chief Counsel.”
Time to be happy and thankful if you’re not a migrant seeking justice and mercy in Trump’s America.
Behind every tyrannical regime are complicit judges who fail to stand up for justice for the most vulnerable and deserving of protection!
Thanks again, Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army and the cause of American justice!
I authored a letter that was published in the New York Times on January 15, 1993, under the heading “A Vital Distinction.” My letter pointed to “a public failure to differentiate between immigrants and refugees.” Immigrants, who come by choice, may be subjected to whatever limitations and restrictions our government chooses to set. However, I noted that “unlike immigrants, refugees have no country to return to.” For that reason, I wrote that the U.S. “is not free to exclude or deport refugees arbitrarily. As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the United States is bound by international law to afford protections to this most vulnerable group, including the right to apply for asylum.” My concluding sentence was that “United States lawmakers must keep immigration and refugee policies distinct, and abide by our legal and moral obligations in excluding refugees from any restrictionist debate.”
Nearly 27 years (and two impeachments) later, the policies of the Trump Administration are precisely designed to blur this important distinction. The implication that refugees should either stay or return “home” ignores the impossibility of such request, as refugees by definition lack a home or country.
On December 18, the Department of Justice published a proposed regulation that would render ineligible for asylum refugees convicted of seven categories of criminal offenses. Included are convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for encouraging a noncitizen to enter or reside in the U.S., knowing that such entry or residence would be in violation of law. It also includes convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for entering or attempting to reenter the U.S. after having previously been denied entry or deported. Of course, in the case of refugees, both of these crimes might be necessitated by the need to save their own lives or those of their loved ones.
The list of prohibited crimes also includes misdemeanors involving false identification (i.e. documents refugees might use to flee harm; think of the movie Casablanca) or unlawfully receiving public benefits.
I am going to agree with my 32-year-old self that these proposed rules violate our obligations under international law. In support of such argument, I look to the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria For Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Handbook is the leading reference tool for interpreting the international treaties forming the basis for U.S. asylum law.1
The Handbook notes three categories of ineligibility under the 1951 Convention for those otherwise meeting the definition of refugee: those not in need of international protection (because the have already obtained protection from another state); those not deserving of protection (such as those guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity), and lastly, those convicted of less egregious offenses that nevertheless constitute “serious non-political crimes” that would make the individual a danger to the accepting community.
Para. 155 of the Handbook clarifies the type of crime necessary to exclude an individual from refugee protection under the Convention, noting that “ a ‘serious’ crime must be a capital crime or a very grave punishable act. Minor offences punishable by moderate sentences are not grounds for exclusion…even if technically referred to as ‘crimes’ in the penal law of the country concerned.”
Para. 156 of the Handbook adds an additional consideration: the severity of the harm feared by the asylum-seeker if deported. The Handbook affirms that the Convention requires a sliding scale under which a person fearing a threat to life or freedom must be convicted of a “very grave” crime in order to be denied refugee protection.
The above-mentioned offenses covered by the new regulations fall far short of the type of serious crimes denoted by the Convention. One who has established a well-founded fear of persecution may never be legally excluded under the Convention because they reentered the U.S. after previously being denied entry, or because they used a false social security card to work.
But even as to more serious offenses, the new regulations lack the required balancing of crime vs. feared harm to determine, as the Handbook aptly puts it, “whether [the asylum-seeker’s] criminal character does not outweigh his character as a bona fide refugee.”
While I’m certain such arguments will fall on deaf ears in the present administration, perhaps the inevitable implementation of the rule will be blocked through litigation or legislation. And as a difficult year draws to an end, let us hope that the need to acknowledge and honor our international law obligations towards refugees will not need repeating 27 years from now.
Note:
See Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980 “does make clear that Congress intended ‘to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the [Protocol], 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.’ Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37” and that “[i]n interpreting the Refugee Act in accordance with the meaning intended by the Protocol, the language in the Act should be read consistently with the United Nations’ interpretation of the refugee standards.”
Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals. He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award. Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys.
Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend and colleague, for your lifetime dedication to Due Process and humanitarian justice!
The regime’s illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional program of White Nationalist fascism goes far beyond this! They have intentionally and cynically conflated immigrants, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers into a single vile and degrading term: “illegals.”
Then, through a process of intentionally misinterpreting law, ignoring the statutes, false narratives, bogus statistics, and trampling due process, they have artificially constricted legal immigration, refugee admissions, and asylum grants to the point where far, far, far too many of those who actually could and should be legally admitted or otherwise given legal permission to remain are now “outside the system” as improperly redefined by the regime. That then leads to the further fiction that we are “being overrun” which is used to “whip up” a racist, White Nationalist “base.”
This, in turn, buries the “Truth That Trump Doesn’t Want You to Know:” Decades of artificially created, market driven, “extralegal migration” has resulted in huge overall benefits to the U.S., particularly our economy. Far from “taking American jobs,” migrants, both documented and undocumented, actually drive our economic success! Doubt this? The Trump family doesn’t! They have consistently relied on both undocumented and documented migrants to keep the money flowing.
Obviously, a rational national response would to use the existing legal system to properly include more qualified individuals while legislating to expand the legal immigration opportunities to more realistic and appropriate levels while simplifying the application process and facilitating the integration and naturalization of those with permanent resident status. Much of the money now spent on needless detention and arbitrary, capricious, politically and racially motivated immigration “enforcement” that fails to serve any legitimate national interest could be reprogrammed to other activities or to real law enforcement against human and drug traffickers and others whose entry might actually be bad for our country. A more generous system would sharply decrease the incentives for extralegal migration and employment, putting many smugglers out of business, thereby allowing law enforcement to focus on a smaller group of those still seeking to evade the system. An expanded and more rational legal immigration system would also make “being sent to the end off the line” a more realistic “sanction” rather than the “nativist legal fiction” it has become under current law.
The whole disgraceful process has been “facilitated” by a Legislative Branch intentionally disempowered by “Moscow Mitch” and his GOP toadies and complicit Article III Courts that ignore the “big picture” and the legal fraud unfolding around them.
Unfortunately, given Trump’s “transformation” of the Federal Courts, even ”regime change” in 2020 might not be enough to save our republic and American democracy!
That’s why the work of the New Due Process Army in confronting Article III Courts with the true ugliness of the results and the full legal and moral implications of their complicity and task avoidance is so important!
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford U.S. District Judge WDNY
Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community reports:
FW:due process victory: Hassoun v. Searls
“[T]he Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of § 1231(a)(6), and that it is accordingly a legal nullity that cannot authorize the ongoing, potentially indefinite detention of Petitioner. … The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before it can determine the lawfulness of Petitioner’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a.”
Note also the roasting, on page 11, of DOJ lawyers for failure to do basic 1L legal research: “To say the least, it is disappointing that Respondent’s counsel, after consulting with other counsel including “prosecutors and appellate attorneys” in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”
I hear and appreciate U.S District Judge (WDNY) Elizabeth A. Wolford’s outrage and frustration.
But, for hard working members of the New Due Process Army this is “just another day at the office” in dealing with the Trump Regime’s unethical, scofflaw, fact free White Nationalist nativist agenda: lies and pretexts presented to the Supremes to hide an intentional census undercount directed at reducing Hispanic voting and political power; false narratives about migrants and crime; a bogus largely self-created “border emergency;” fraudulent “national security” justifications; EOIR “administrative changes” intended to undermine the right to representation and eliminate due process; twisted unethical “precedents” entered by the chief prosecutor that always come out against the individuals; misogynist racist misinterpretations of asylum law intended to kill, maim, and torture vulnerable women of color; child abuse cloaked in disingenuous “law enforcement” rationales; bogus “civil detention” to punish lawful asylum seekers; a grotesquely dishonest “Migrant Protection Protocol” intended to subject migrants to deadly conditions in Mexico; “Safe” Third Countries that are among the most dangerous in the world without functioning asylum systems; irrational “public charge” regulations intended to reduce legal immigration without legislation; EOIR’s distorted statistics intentionally manipulated to minimize asylum grants and cover up the anti-asylum bias improperly infused into the system; vicious unsupported attacks on the private bar by the Attorney General and other regime politicos. The list goes on forever.
Unfortunately, this scofflaw and unethical behavior will continue until Federal Judges back up their words with actions: declarations of unconstitutionality; sanctions against the Government for frivolous litigation; removing political control over EOIR; referring Barr and other DOJ attorneys who are abusing the justice system to bar authorities for possible discipline.
“This ain’t your Momma’s or Papa’s DOJ!” (Or for that matter one that those of us who served in the recent past would recognize.) Its antecedents and “role models” are America’s vile, deadly, discredited Jim Crow era and 20th & 21st Century fascist regimes.
Time for Article III Judges to get out of their ivory towers, stop tiptoeing around Government corruption, dishonesty and misconduct, and start looking at things from the human perspective of the individuals and their courageous attorneys caught up in this legal, moral, and ethical quagmire and fighting not only for their own lives but for the future of our nation! There is and will be “only one right side of history” in this existential struggle!
Due Process Forever; The Corrupt White Nationalist Immigration Agenda Never!
Trump admin announces rule further limiting immigrants’ eligibility for asylum
DUIs, drug paraphernalia possession and unlawful receipt of public benefits would be among seven triggers barring migrants from even applying for asylum.
by Julia Ainsley | NBC NEWS
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced a new rule Wednesday that would further limit immigrants’ eligibility for asylum if they have been convicted of certain crimes, including driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The rule, if finalized, would give asylum officers seven requirements with which to deem an immigrant ineligible to apply for asylum.
Other acts that would make an immigrant ineligible for asylum under the new rule include the unlawful receipt of public benefits, illegal re-entry after being issued a deportation order and being found “by an adjudicator” to have engaged in domestic violence, even if there was no conviction for such violence.
The rules could eliminate large numbers of asylum-seekers from ever having their cases heard in court. Currently, immigration courts have a backlog of over 1 million cases, according to data kept by Syracuse University.
In a statement, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security said the new rule would “increase immigration court efficiencies.”
Andrew Free, an immigration attorney based in Nashville, said the new regulation is “calculated to enable the denial of as many claims as possible.”
Free said the most common charges he sees for his immigrant clients are driving under the influence, domestic violence and driving without a license. Driving without a license is particularly common for immigrants who have had to use fake travel documents to enter the U.S. and live in states that do not give licenses to undocumented migrants.
“People who are fleeing persecutions and violence are not going to be able to get travel documents from the governments inflicting violence upon them. If you have to resort to other means of proving your identity, you won’t be eligible [for asylum,]” Free said.
The Trump administration has unveiled a number of new requirements meant to curb asylum applications this year. The most successful of those policies has been “Remain in Mexico” or MPP, that requires lawful asylum-seekers from Central America to wait in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions, until their court date in the United States. Over 60,000 asylum-seekers are currently waiting in Mexico for a decision to be made in their case, a process that can take over a year.
“The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, “the Departments”) today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend their respective regulations in order to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. Upon finalization of the rulemaking process, the Departments will be able to devote more resources to the adjudication of asylum cases filed by non-criminal aliens.
Asylum is a discretionary immigration benefit that generally can be sought by eligible aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States, irrespective of their status, as provided in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. However, in the INA, Congress barred certain categories of aliens from receiving asylum. In addition to the statutory bars, Congress delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish by regulation additional bars on asylum eligibility to the extent they are consistent with the asylum statute, as well as to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. Today, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security are proposing to exercise their regulatory authority to limit eligibility for asylum for aliens who have engaged in specified categories of criminal behavior. The proposed rule will also eliminate a regulation concerning the automatic reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum applications in limited cases.
The proposed regulation would provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum. The proposed rule would add bars to eligibility for aliens who commit certain offenses in the United States.Those bars would apply to aliens who are convicted of:
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
The seven proposed bars would be in addition to the existing mandatory bars in the INA and its implementing regulations, such as those relating to the persecution of others, convictions for particularly serious crimes, commission of serious nonpolitical crimes, security threats, terrorist activity, and firm resettlement in another country.
Under the current statutory and regulatory framework, asylum officers and immigration judges consider the applicability of mandatory bars to asylum in every proceeding involving an alien who has submitted an application for asylum. Although the proposed regulation would expand the mandatory bars to asylum, the proposed regulation does not change the nature or scope of the role of an immigration judge or an asylum officer during proceedings for consideration of asylum applications.
The proposed rule would also remove the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. The removal of the requirement to reconsider a discretionary denial would increase immigration court efficiencies and reduce any cost from the increased adjudication time by no longer requiring a second review of the same application by the same immigration judge.” (bold added).
What total, unadulterated BS and gratuitous cruelty!
For example, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) are humanitarian provisions that seldom come up except in highly unusual and sympathetic cases. The idea that they represent a “drain” on IJ time is preposterous! And, if they did, it would be well worth it to help to keep deserving and vulnerable refugee families together!
I had about three such cases involving those regulations in 13 years on the bench, although I cited the existing regulation for the proposition that discretionary denials are disfavored, as they should be under international humanitarian laws. Federal Courts and the BIA have held that asylum should not be denied for “discretionary reasons” except in the case of “egregious adverse factors.” Therefore, an Immigration Judge properly doing his or her job would very seldom have occasion to enter a “discretionary denial” to someone eligible for asylum. Obviously, the regime intends to ignore these legal rulings.
One of my colleagues wrote “they are going to capture a lot of people and force IJs to hear separate asylum applications for each family member. So counterproductive.”
Cruelty, and more “aimless docket reshuffling” is what these “maliciously incompetent gimmicks” are all about.
I note that this is a “joint proposal” from EOIR and DHS Enforcement, the latter supposedly a “party” to every Immigration Court proceeding, but actually de facto in charge of the EOIR “judges.” That alone makes it unethical, a sign of bias, and a clear denial of Due Process for the so-called “court” and the “Government party” to collude against the “private party.”
When will the Article IIIs do their job and put an end to this nonsense? It’s not “rocket science.” Most first year law students could tell you that this absurd charade of a “court” is a clear violation of Due Process! So, what’s the problem with the Article IIIs? Have they forgotten both their humanity and what they learned in Con Law as well as their oaths of office they took upon investiture?
Right now, as intended by the regime with the connivance and complicity of the Article IIIs, those advocating for the legal, constitutional, and human rights of asylum seekers are being forced to divert scarce resources to respond to the “regime shenanigan of the day.” It’s also abusing and disrespecting the Article III Courts. Why are they so blind to what’s REALLY going on when the rest of us see it so clearly? These aren’t “legal disputes” or “legitimate policy initiatives.” No, they are lawless outright attacks on our Constitution, our nation, our human values, and our system of justice which Article III Judges are sworn to uphold!
Join the New Due Process Army and fight to protect our democracy from the White Nationalist Regime and the complicit life-tenured judges who enable and encourage it!
Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” & Complicit Courts Never!
The Supreme Court has accepted another criminal removal case for review. Today, the Court granted cert in Pereida v. Barr. The issue in the case is whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The complaint in petitioner’s state criminal case alleged that he “use[d] a fraudulent Social Security card to obtain employment.” Petitioner pleaded no contest to the charge. The Board of Immigration Appeals found Pereida ineligible for cancellation for removal and the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review.
KJ
***********************************
Many thanks to the pro bono team at Orrick for “helping us to help others.”
I’m proud to be a member of the Round Table and am deeply grateful for the efforts of Judges Jeffrey Chase, Lory Rosenberg, John Gossart, Carol King, and others who got this group organized and “up and running” and who keep track of all the (almost daily) requests for our assistance.
I can’t help wondering what would happen if we had an Administration that worked cooperatively with the available resources to solve problems, honored expertise, promoted justice, resisted evil, and made Due Process for all a reality!
Instead, we have an ugly, cruel group of racist inspired neo-fascists and their tone-deaf supporters actively working against our laws, our Constitution, and the best interests of our country. In other words, a kakistocracy that has institutionalized “malicious incompetence.”
Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence Never!”
Immigration Tent Courts at Border Raise Due-Process Concerns
By
Michelle Hackman and
Alicia A. Caldwell | Photographs by Verónica G. Cárdenas for The Wall Street Journal
Dec. 14, 2019 9:00 am ET
BROWNSVILLE, Texas—Each morning well before sunrise, dozens of immigrants line up on the international bridge here to enter a recently erected tent facility at the U.S. border.
Inside a large wedding-style tent, the government has converted shipping containers into temporary courtrooms, where flat screens show the judge and a translator, who are in front of a camera in chambers miles away.
The tents, which appeared at ports of entry here and up the Rio Grande in Laredo in late summer, are the latest manifestation of the Trump administration’s evolving response to a surge of migrants seeking asylum at the southern border.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Do you think the differences between the tent courts and other immigration courts deny some applicants due process? Join the conversation below.
Migrants are ushered to these courts dozens at a time, allowing them access to the U.S. legal system without admitting them onto U.S. soil. They are already part of yet another Trump administration experiment, the Migrant Protection Protocols, which requires migrants to live in Mexico for the duration of their court cases.
The administration says the tent courts are designed to help the immigration system move more quickly through cases, providing asylum faster for qualified applicants and turning away the rest—many of whom, the administration says, have submitted fraudulent claims.
In the past, nearly all families and children arriving at the border were allowed into the U.S. to await hearings. But now, tens of thousands of asylum seekers must wait months in Mexican border cities that have some of the highest crime rates in the Western Hemisphere.
Asylum seekers waited in line to attend their immigration hearings on the Gateway International Bridge in Matamoros.
On a recent Friday, Judge Eric Dillow connected with the Brownsville tent via videoconference from his courtroom in Harlingen, Texas, about 30 miles away. The migrants, seated at a folding table, were shown on a large screen.
Judge Dillow planned to hold hearings for 28 migrants that morning, but only 17 appeared at the bridge the requisite four hours before their 8:30 a.m. hearing. Only two brought a lawyer. The rest were read their rights as a group, and when asked if they had questions, none raised their hands.
James McHenry, head of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees immigration courts, said temporary courts adhere to the same procedures and offer the same rights to people as other immigration courts. “In all cases, a well-trained and professional immigration judge considers the facts and evidence, applies the relevant law, and makes an appropriate decision consistent with due process,” he said.
But immigrant-rights advocates and the union representing immigration judges—who are Justice Department employees—say the unique conditions of the tent courts deny migrants due process by depriving them of meaningful access to lawyers or interaction with judges, making the setup essentially a rubber stamp for deportation.
“It’s a system that’s designed in its entire structure to turn people away,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The judges union has expressed concern over numerous issues: Judges can’t interact with applicants face-to-face, which the union says is important to assess credibility. Immigration court officials aren’t in the tents, which are operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judges can’t hand migrants documents directly to ensure they contain no errors. Unlike most U.S. courts, the tents are closed to the public and press.
A Cuban asylum seeker waited in Matamoros to present his documents to the agent who will be escorting him to his immigration hearing.
“The space of the court is supposed to be controlled by the court,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “But the tents, we don’t have any control over.”
Most migrants who cross the border near Brownsville are sent to Matamoros, Mexico, just across the Rio Grande, where they live in shelters or tents near the bridge.
They are returned with little more than a sheet of paper stating their first court date and a list of lawyers to contact. But those contacts aren’t very useful because they have either U.S.-based or toll-free phone numbers that don’t function in Mexico.
Of the 47,313 people whose cases were filed between January and September, only 2.3% have legal representation and only 11 have been granted asylum or other legal status, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which tracks immigration court data.
Pro-bono lawyers who work with these migrants are fearful to travel far beyond the U.S. border into Mexico. Inside the tents, lawyers are typically permitted 15 minutes to meet clients before hearings. In most other U.S. courts, lawyers are free to visit clients, and detention facilities provide more opportunities for meetings.
On two recent days in the tents, migrants appearing alone spent about five minutes each before a judge, while migrants with lawyers took between 20 and 30 minutes each.
“The system is dependent on individuals not finding representation because they can be deported much easier and faster,” said Jeff O’Brien, a California-based immigration lawyer representing several Brownsville clients pro bono. “If everyone had a lawyer, it would essentially come to a halt.”
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent checked documents presented by asylum seekers.
Documentation errors are a common hurdle. Applicants’ addresses are often listed on forms as simply “domicilio conocido,” which roughly translates as general delivery, or sometimes a Matamoros shelter that many migrants avoid because they are scared to travel farther into the city.
Tent camp residents also had notices for hearings when courts aren’t open: one at 1 a.m. and another on a Saturday.
It isn’t known how the government notifies these migrants about changes in their cases without valid addresses. Migrants who aren’t at the bridge for hearings are assumed to have abandoned their cases. Government lawyers ask judges to deport absentees—ending asylum requests and barring them from the U.S. for a decade.
Asked about how address discrepancies are handled, a Justice Department spokesman said judges follow the Immigration Court Practice Manual. The manual requires migrants in the U.S. to notify the court of address changes, and in cases where they are detained, it requires the government to notify the court where. Neither scenario applies to migrants in Mexico.
Without lawyers, applicants routinely make paperwork errors—such as submitting documents in Spanish, or documents translated into English without a form certifying the translator is English-proficient—that advocates say they have seen judges use to order them deported.
At a recent hearing in Brownsville, a Honduran woman and her baby daughter appeared before Judge Sean D. Clancy in Harlingen. A CBP officer in Brownsville had faxed the woman’s asylum application to Harlingen, where a clerk handed it to the judge.
A Central American asylum-seeking mother hugged her child on a November morning in Matamoros.
“Are you afraid of returning to Honduras?” Judge Clancy asked the woman. A translator beside him repeated the question in Spanish. “Very much,” came the translated reply.
Judge Clancy looked at her application and noted a different response. “One question here says, ‘Do you fear harm if you return to your home country?’ And you checked ‘no.’”
The woman appeared confused. Judge Clancy told her to return to court with a properly completed application on April 15, when a date for her full asylum hearing would be set.
What a total disgrace and mockery of justice! What do Circuit Court of Appeals judges do for a living if they don’t have the legal skills and courage to stand up for our Constitution and our asylum laws against US Government fraud and abuses like this?
Nobody without a lawyer has any chance in this system! With a representation rate of an astoundingly low 2.3% due to the Trump regime’s intentional obstacles, roadblocks, and refusal to promote and facilitate pro bono representation, this system is nothing less than an unconstitutional and illegal “killing floor” (a reasonable chance to be represented by pro bono counsel is actually a statutory requirement). You don’t have to be much of an Article III Judge to recognize the the systemic fraud and abuse going on here. But, a judge would have to have the courage to stand up to the Trump regime and put a stop to this disgraceful nonsense! Sadly, courage seems to be something in very short supply at the appellate levels of the Federal Judiciary these days.
Thanks Michelle and Alicia for exposing this ongoing parody of justice!
This week was a big one in the history of this country.
The House Committee on the Judiciary voted to impeach the President for the fourth time in American history. But that was not, actually, the biggest story. The big story was that it became clear that the leadership of today’s Republican Party, a party started in the 1850s by men like Abraham Lincoln to protect American democracy, is trying to undermine our government.
Even as I write that, it seems crazy. But I can reach no other conclusion after watching the behavior of the Republicans over the past few weeks, from their yelling and grandstanding rather than interviewing witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings, to the truly bizarre statements of Trump and Attorney General Barr saying the report of the Justice Department’s Inspector General about the investigation into Russian interference in 2016 concluded the opposite of what it did, to the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee making a mockery of the hearings rather than actually participating in them, and finally culminating in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing on Sean Hannity’s program last night that “There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.”
A look at the members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted for or against impeachment explains how we got here. It was a strict party vote, and of the 23 Democrats who voted to impeach Trump, 11 were women, and twelve were people of color (California’s Ted Lieu did not vote because he was recovering from surgery). Of the 17 Republicans who voted against impeachment, two were women. Zero were people of color.
That the Republican Party has turned itself into an all-white, largely male party is the result of a deliberate campaign of industrialists to destroy the national consensus after WWII. Unregulated capitalism crashed the world economy in 1929, then an activist government both provided relief during the Depression and enabled the Allies to win WWII. By 1945, Americans of all parties embraced the idea that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure. This belief was called the “liberal consensus,” and it was behind both the largest welfare program in American history—Social Security—and the largest infrastructure project in American history—the Interstate Highway System. Taxes of up to 91% under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower helped to pay for this popular system.
But a small group of businessmen loathed the idea that government bureaucrats could tell them how to run their businesses. Rather than having to abide by government regulations, they wanted to go back to the world of the 1920s, when businessmen ran the government. They insisted that the government must do nothing but defend the nation and promote religion.
They made little headway. The economy was booming and most Americans loved their new nice homes and family cars, and recognized that it was labor legislation and government regulation that enabled them to make a good living. The liberal consensus kept wealth spread fairly in society, rather than accumulating at the top as it had done in the 1920s.
But there was a catch. The logical outcome of a war for democracy was that all Americans would have the right to have a say in their government. The idea that men of color and women should have a say equal to white men in our government gave an opening to the men who wanted to destroy the nation’s postwar active government. When a Republican Supreme Court unanimously decided that segregation was unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the way was clear for these men to argue that an active government was not about protecting equality; it was simply a way to give benefits to black people, paid for by white tax dollars.
This argument drew directly from the years of Reconstruction after the Civil War, when the Republican national taxes invented during the Civil War coincided with the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing black men the right to vote. In 1871, white supremacist Democrats in the South began to argue (disingenuously) that they had no problem with black men voting. What they objected to was poor men voting for leaders who promised “stuff”—roads and schools and hospitals in the war-damaged South—that could only be paid for with tax levies on the only people in the South who had money: white men. This, they said, was socialism.
One hundred years later, this equation– that people of color would vote for government benefits paid for by hardworking white men– was the argument on which businessmen after WWII broke the liberal consensus. Their candidate Reagan rose to power on the image of the Welfare Queen, a black woman who, he said “has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In his inaugural address he concluded, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He promised to take tax dollars from welfare queens and give them back to hardworking white men.
These new Republicans slashed government regulation and social welfare programs, as they promised, but their laws did not help middle-class white men. Instead wealth moved upward. Voters pushed back, and to stay in power, Republicans purged the party of people who still believed that the government should regulate business and provide a social safety net—people Newt Gingrich called RINOs, for Republicans In Name Only—and then began to purge opposition voters. As Republicans got more and more extreme, they lost more voters and so, to stay in power, they began to gerrymander congressional districts. Increasingly, they argued that Democrats only won elections with illegal votes, usually votes of people of color. Those voters were “takers” who wanted handouts from “makers,” as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney put it. It was imperative to keep people of color and women from voting. Their desire for government regulation, social welfare, and infrastructure funding was “socialism.”
A generation of vilifying Democrats as “socialists” has brought us to a place where Republican leaders reject outright the idea that Democrats can govern legitimately. To keep voters from electing Democrats, Republicans have abandoned democracy. They are willing to purge voting rolls, gerrymander states, collude with a foreign power to swing elections, and protect a president who has attacked Congress, packed the courts, and attacked the media, looking everything like a dictator on the make, so long as he slashes taxes and attacks women and people of color. While Republicans used to call their opponents socialists, they now call them traitors.
We are at the moment when Americans must choose. Will we allow these Republican leaders to establish an oligarchy in which a few white men run the country in their own interests, or do we really believe that everyone has a right to a say in our government?
For my part, I will stand with Lincoln, who in the midst of a war against oligarchy, charged his fellow Americans to “highly resolve that…, this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
On this mid-December Sunday, people took a deep breath before jockeying over impeachment began again tonight. There is movement against the Republican leaders’ rigging of the system, but whether or not that is going to matter remains to be seen.
Trump’s surrogates today continued their disinformation. On CNN this morning, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul tried to argue that Trump had not asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a rival. Anchor Jake Tapper noted that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden. Paul said: “He does not call up and say investigate my rival. He says investigate a person.” Tapper had to point out that Biden was Trump’s rival. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani also began to run his One America News Network “documentary” attacking former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and claiming that the Bidens were laundering money.
If that was what was on display today as the defense of the president, there were Republicans who spoke out against the lockstep. On “Meet the Press,” Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) told host Chuck Todd that ““I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over…. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the President’s attorneys an opportunity to make their defense, and then make a decision about whether, and to what extent, it would go forward from there.”
Democrats are trying to figure out a way to emphasize that Trump’s impeachment is about country rather than party. Today a group of 30 first-term Democrats in the House asked leaders to add Justin Amash, an Independent libertarian from Michigan, who was a Republican until last July 4, to the list of impeachment managers. Amash is no Democrat; he is a conservative libertarian, and his inclusion, they argue, would help illustrate that impeachment is bipartisan. It’s not clear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will name the managers, will include him. He is not on either the House Intelligence or Judiciary Committees, so would be an outside pick, and as a libertarian, would be a bit of a wild card for the Democrats.
The biggest news on the impeachment front today, though, came tonight, when Charles E. (Chuck) Schumer of New York, the Senate Minority Leader (which means he is the highest ranking Democrat in the Republican-controlled Senate) made an opening bid in negotiations over the form of an impeachment trial in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has faced a ferocious outcry over his statement to Fox News personality Sean Hannity that the outcome of a Senate impeachment trial was already decided: “There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.” McConnell has made it clear he wants a quick, quiet trial with no witnesses or documents, to avoid both further incriminating Trump and to avoid the kind of circus we saw in the House Judiciary Committee hearings. But there is pushback on such a whitewashing.
Schumer’s letter advanced quite reasonable terms for a trial, but those terms are going to chafe McConnell. Noting that he based his provisions on the ones Republicans passed during the Clinton impeachment, Schumer asked for a fairly tight schedule. But he and McConnell will part company over Schumer’s request for witnesses “with direct knowledge of Administration decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine.”
I quoted that line in its entirety because it’s important: Schumer is threading the needle of asking for witnesses without opening up the possibility for Republicans to drag in all the people that have been identified in their circles as being part of a grand Ukrainian conspiracy, including, of course, the Bidens. Schumer has asked for only four people: acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who withheld the funds; Robert Blair, his senior advisor; Michael Duffey, the Associate Director for National Security in the Office of Management and Budget (which withheld the funds); and John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor. The House asked or subpoenaed all four of these people to testify and all refused. Schumer said the Democrats would be happy to hear from additional witnesses, but only those who had direct knowledge of the issues identified in that line I quoted. So not Hunter Biden or Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, all of whom Trump has insisted should testify.
Schumer also asked for documents, again, limited to the narrow focus on aid to Ukraine in exchange for Zelensky’s announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. That is, essentially material related to the July 25 phone call which started this whole thing.
(By the way… remember Sharpiegate, when someone altered a weather map with a Sharpie to make it look like the path of Hurricane Dorian would follow Trump’s offhand comment that it threatened Alabama and we heard about it for days? That began on September 4, right when Trump would have learned about the whistleblower complaint. Interesting timing, huh?)
Schumer suggested other rules, too, but the witnesses and documents are the big ticket items. He told McConnell that he is not open to monkeying around with these requests, and will not take the chance that the Republicans try to maneuver around them by breaking them into individual rules and then either altering them or voting them down piecemeal. “We believe all of this should be considered in one resolution,” he wrote. “The issue of witnesses and documents, which are the most important issues facing us, should be decided before we move forward with any part of the trial.”
This is going to be hard for McConnell to get around if Senators like Toomey are serious about not simply rubber stamping Trump’s behavior. Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, who is one of our foremost experts in Constitutional law, liked Schumer’s proposal. If McConnell “rejects these reasonable ground rules & insists on a non-trial,” Tribe wrote, “the House should consider treating that as a breach of the Senate’s oath & withholding the Articles until the Senate reconsiders.”
I have been an agnostic about whether or not the House could refuse to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, but if Tribe says it’s constitutional, then as far as I’m concerned, it’s on the table.
Finally, just after midnight tonight, the House Judiciary Committee published its full report on impeachment. The 658-page document explains the committee’s process and argument for the two articles of impeachment it passed. I am not going to read it tonight (!) but reports say it includes this:
“President Trump has realized the Framers’ worst nightmare. He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia.”
With a White Nationalist GOP minority taking direct aim at American democracy, it’s now or never for the rest of us.
No, he won’t be removed from office by “Moscow Mitch,” “Senator Lindsey Sycophant,” and the rest of their crew. Ironically, the regime continues to send vulnerable asylum seekers, including women and children, into deadly situations without any semblance of “due process.” But, for the Supreme Leader, “due process” consists of having his lawyers work with the “jury” on how to stage his “show trial acquittal” with a predetermined script that whitewashes, largely ignores, and intentionally misconstrues the overwhelming evidence against him. Sounds very “Putinesque.” But, then, “Moscow Mitch is used to carrying the Russian autocrat’s water for him.
The 2020 election could be the last, best chance for justice in America, in more ways than one!
Due Process Forever; Trump/GOP Kakistocracy Never!
<audio title=”Trump’s Tent Cities Are on the Verge of Killing Immigrant Children” src=”https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SLT7575031485.mp3″ class=”slate-megaphone__audio-player” tabindex=”0″ preload=”metadata” controls></audio> <iframe title=”Trump’s Tent Cities Are on the Verge of Killing Immigrant Children” src=”https://player.megaphone.fm/SLT7575031485?light=true” frameborder=”no” height=”200″ scrolling=”no” width=”100%”></iframe> 
