Steve Bannon – Page 12 – immigrationcourtside.com

COURTSIDE HISTORY: Trump’s American White Nationalist Antecedents Were The Racist Pols & Pseudo-Scientists Of A Century Ago! — The Lies & Ugliness Of The Past Are Being Repeated — Only This Time It’s People Of Color Rather Than Italians, Irish, Slavs, Catholics, & Jews Who Are Targeted For “Dehumanization” (Although It Would Be Wrong To Underestimate Trump’s Responsibility For The Revival Of Anti-Semitism)!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/opinion/sunday/anti-immigrant-hatred-1920s.html

Daniel Okrent writes in the NY Times:

In early 1921, an article in Good Housekeeping signaled the coming of a law that makes President Trump’s campaign for immigration restriction seem mild by comparison. “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” it read. “The dead weight of alien accretion stifles national progress.” The author was Calvin Coolidge, about to be sworn in as vice president of the United States. Three years later, the most severe immigration law in American history entered the statute books, shepherded by believers in those “biological laws.”

The anti-immigrant fervor at the heart of current White House policymaking is not a new phenomenon, nor is the xenophobia that has infected the political mainstream. In fact, race-based nativism comes with an exalted pedigree — and that pedigree is something we all should remember as the Trump administration continues its assault on immigrants of specific nationalities. The scientific arguments Coolidge invoked were advanced by men bearing imposing credentials. Some were highly regarded scholars from Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. One ran the nation’s foremost genetics laboratory. Another was America’s leading environmentalist at the time. Yet another was the director of the country’s most respected natural history museum.

Together, they popularized “racial eugenics,” a junk science that made ethnically based racism respectable. “The day of the sociologist is passing,” said the Harvard professor Robert DeCourcy Ward, “and the day of the biologist has come.” The biologists and their publicists achieved what their political allies had failed to accomplish for 30 years: enactment of a law stemming the influx of Jews, Italians, Greeks and other eastern and southern Europeans. “The need of restriction is manifest,” The New York Times declared in an editorial, for “American institutions are menaced” by “swarms of aliens.”

Image

Protesters rallied last June against family separations in front of the United States Port of Entry in downtown El Paso, Texas. CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times

Keeping people out of the country because of their nationality was hardly a novel idea. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was avowedly racist. In 1923 a unanimous Supreme Court declared that immigrants from India could be barred from citizenship strictly on racial grounds.

What was different about the new, putatively scientific campaign was that even whiteness was no ticket to entry.

Writing about Slavic immigrants, the sociologist Edward A. Ross of the University of Wisconsin — later the national chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union — declared, they “are immune to certain kinds of dirt. They can stand what would kill a white man.” The president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology said newcomers from eastern and southern Europe were “vast masses of filth” who were “living like swine.”

The Washington Post editorialized that 90 percent of Italians coming to the United States were “the degenerate spawn” of “Asiatic hordes.” A Boston philanthropist, Joseph Lee, his city’s leading supporter of progressive causes, explained to friends why he became the single largest financial backer of the anti-immigrant campaign: His concern, he wrote, was that without a restriction law, Europe would be “drained of Jews — to its benefit no doubt but not to ours.”

The “biological” justifications for this nativism were first developed in Cold Spring Harbor, on Long Island, in laboratories financed by the widow of the railroad baron E.H. Harriman. (One of her goals, Mary Harriman said, was preventing “the decay of the American race.”) The laboratory’s head, the zoologist Charles B. Davenport, took the ideas of the British gentleman scientist Francis Galton — who had coined the word “eugenics” in 1883 — welded them to a gross misunderstanding of the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel, and concluded that the makeup of the nation’s population could be improved by the careful control of human breeding. One of the first steps, he believed, was to impose new controls on open immigration.

At first, Davenport wished to bar the immigration only of people afflicted by specific disorders — epileptics, the “feebleminded” and others of similarly troublesome (to Davenport) disability. But soon he was caught up in a racialist whirlwind initiated by “The Passing of the Great Race,” a book by Madison Grant, the founder of the Bronx Zoo and the era’s most prominent conservationist. A bilious stew of dubious history, bogus anthropology and completely unfounded genetic theory, Grant’s work persuaded Davenport and others that the American bloodstream was threatened not by suspect individuals, but by entire ethnic groups.

First published in 1916 and reissued in a series of revisions over the next eight years — all of them brought into print by Maxwell Perkins, the celebrated editor of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway — “The Passing of the Great Race” savagely denigrated the peoples of eastern and southern Europe while exalting the “Nordics” of northwestern Europe. With the presumed authority of scholarship, he summarized the essential argument of racial eugenics.

“Whether we like to admit it or not,” Grant wrote, “the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting” to the “lower type.” Lower than Nordics were the questionable “Alpines.” Lower than the “Alpines” were the woeful “Mediterraneans.” And, he concluded, “the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”

Grant was not an actual scientist. But Henry Fairfield Osborn, a world-famous paleontologist and his closest friend, definitely was. Osborn, who once expressed his opposition to the extension of the Westchester Parkway near his country estate because it would bring thousands of “East Side Jews” to the area, presided over the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years, and made that institution the beating heart of the combined eugenics and anti-immigration movement. “I am convinced,” said Osborn, that the “spiritual, physical, moral and intellectual structure” of individuals is “based on racial characteristics.” It wasn’t a matter of ethnic bias, he said — it was “cold-blooded” science.

Other scholars rallied to the cause. Robert M. Yerkes — his name immortalized today at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta — conducted a severely flawed series of tests of American servicemen purporting to establish the intellectual inferiority of eastern and southern Europeans. Charles W. Gould, a lawyer in New York, sponsored “A Study of American Intelligence,” by Carl C. Brigham, a young Princeton psychologist (and later the inventor of the SAT). Brigham’s conclusion: “There can be no doubt that recent history has shown a movement of inferior peoples or inferior representatives of peoples to this country.”

At the same time, Perkins and his colleagues at Charles Scribner’s Sons published a raft of books promoting racialized eugenics. Scribner publicists wrote in one promotion piece: “The inrush of lower races is threatening the very blood of our country.” Perkins’s authors were echoed in the country’s leading magazine, The Saturday Evening Post. “Race character is as fixed a fact as race color,” the Post declared. “Thirty years ago,” the magazine insisted in another article, “science had not perhaps sufficiently advanced to make us fully aware” of the danger of open immigration. Now it had.

Read more

Opinion articles about immigration.

Opinion | Janet Murguía

The American Family Makes This Country Great, and It’s in Danger

May 2, 2019

Opinion | Alan Cross

Alabama Is More Pro-Immigrant Than You Think

April 30, 2019

When the 1924 Immigration Act reached the floor of Congress, passage was assured. Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Immigration and Naturalization Committee, declared that “the fundamental reason” for immigration restriction was “biological.” During the floor debate, one congressman said the law was provoked by “the necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America.” Given the arguments presented by so many of the nation’s leading scientific figures, who could disagree?

The resulting law established quotas by nation; they cut like a scythe. In the last year before their introduction, more than 220,000 Italians entered the United States. The quota slashed that number to less than 4,000. Reductions nearly as harsh were imposed on other eastern and southern European groups, while tens of thousands of slots reserved for Britons, Scandinavians and other “Nordics” went unfilled.

The 1924 quotas remained in force for more than 40 years — while the economic devastation of a worldwide depression hit southern Europe especially hard; while a 1939 measure that would have allowed 20,000 German Jewish children into the United States died in Congress, and the savagery of the Holocaust began; while the Nazis and their allies starved 350,000 Greeks and slaughtered 200,000 Serbs; and while displaced-persons camps stretched across the ruins of postwar Europe.

In 1920, Charles Davenport had asked Madison Grant, “Can we build a wall high enough around this country” to keep out the unwanted? They could, and they did.

Daniel Okrent is the author of “The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America.”

***********************************

The race-based ”Aryan Nationalism” of 1920’s America helped pave the way for the Nazi atrocities of World War II.

Out of the failure of the West to save lives when it was possible before the start of World War II and the horrible human exterminations that followed came the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees. It is that Convention which Trump and other nationalist leaders throughout the Western World are committed to destroying.

At the recent Louisiana State Bar Immigration Conference, held on April 26, 2019, Attorney R. Andrew Free of Nashville, TN, who had been to the border and observed firsthand the lawless, counterproductive, and inhumane behavior of both the Mexican and U.S. authorities toward asylum seekers, particularly women and children, made an excellent “historical perspective” presentation.

Free traced the origins of today’s xenophobic and racist-inspired restrictionist immigration policies policies to two historic events: 1) the Eisenhower Administration’s 1954 “Operation Wetback” directed against Mexicans which resulted in some Mexican-American citizens and lawful residents being swept up in the indiscriminate “dragnet,” without any hint of due process, directed against Hispanic appearing and Spanish speaking individuals along the Southern Border; and 2) the highly racist Immigration Act of 1924, praised by such “modern day Jim Crows” as Jeff Sessions and his acolyte White House Advisor Stephen Miller.

Do we as a people REALLY want to be remembered the way Coolidge, Albert Johnson, and the host of racist “pseudo-scientists” are described in this article? Or, are we willing to take a stand against the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda being pushed by Trump and his many enablers?

How can we forget our own immigrant heritages and the nasty racist stereotypes thrown at almost every group of new immigrants, including of course enslaved African Americans and other “involuntary forced migrants,” who built America into a great nation!

Due Process Forever — White Nationalism Never!

PWS

05-09-19

PROFESSOR FITZ BRUNDAGE @ WASHPOST: Can We Regain Our Humanitarian Values In The Age Of Trump? — “We must shine a spotlight on cruel and illegal policies that undermine our national ideals and find the wisdom and the courage to do better.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/03/can-united-states-retain-its-humanity-even-crisis

Brundage writes in WashPost:

By Fitz Brundage

Fitz Brundage is the William B. Umstead professor of history at UNC-Chapel Hill and the author of “Civilizing Torture,” which was a finalist for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in History.

May 3

Does it violate human rights to hold children in fenced enclosures in grim facilities that are bone-chillingly cold for weeks on end? Is separating children from their parents a form of cruel and unusual punishment? When does a crisis justify the kind of treatment normally seen as inhumane?

The furious debate over migrant detention along the nation’s southwest border with Mexico has put these questions front and center in American politics. But they’re not new. The treatment of people on the margins of American life — criminals, immigrants, civilians in overseas war zones — has always proven a challenge to our democratic ideals.

Yet beginning in the 1920s, activists waged a half-century-long struggle to persuade the Supreme Court to stop abusive practices by authorities. After World War II, the United States also committed itself to the promotion of international human rights. These two signal developments have been seriously eroded, first by the excesses of the war on terrorism and now by the Trump administration’s targeting of the unwelcome and powerless, whether they are undocumented immigrants in the United States or asylum seekers. We have returned to a pattern of willful ignorance, one that allows us to avoid grappling with deeply immoral policies.

Threats to our safety, perceived or real, have long justified the kind of “tougher policies” that President Trump has demanded for the southern border. He may not be well versed in history, but the president is joining a long line of elected officials who found that rights and basic norms are easily jettisoned when they collide with demands for greater security. Across our history, from the Indian wars to the war on terrorism, officials were quick to call for “tougher policies” and slow to fill in the details. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered military commanders in the Philippines to adopt “the most stern measures” to punish Filipino guerrillas; in a subsequent campaign the Marines followed orders and left a trail of devastation and death across the island of Samar. But such methods were justified as a “military necessity.”

Roosevelt rationalized the brutal treatment of alleged guerrillas by citing the need to stanch the threat to security. This kind of evasive language has repeatedly prevented us from coming to terms with acts of cruelty carried out in the name of national security. We’re seeing that pattern again.

What precisely did Trump officials mean when they announced “a tougher direction” for immigration? They certainly imply more than just the proposals for new fees and regulations reducing the numbers of asylum seekers. Are the American people ready to confront the reality of harsh security measures? Or will we retreat into euphemisms such as a “hardened” border and “zero tolerance” for migrants that covers up the reality of what is actually happening on the border?

As early as 2014, immigrants-rights advocates appealed to the Department of Homeland Security to investigate more than 100 instances of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents abusing child immigrants. A quarter of the children reported physical abuse, including sexual assault, the use of stress positions and beatings. Many more suffered verbal abuse, including death threats. Since then, goaded by Trump, CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have applied even more extreme measures, including harsh confinement and prolonged separation of families.

We are deciding day by day whether to extend the basic protections of law and civilization to the people arriving on our border. For much of the nation’s history, the prohibition on cruelty and torture in American law rested on the premise that the fundamental decency of Americans, especially empathy for fellow citizens, would make such violations unthinkable.

But our capacity to empathize begins to fray at the margins, and we grow less certain about who, exactly, deserves protection. Those deemed undeserving, unwelcome or powerless — Native Americans, the enslaved, prison inmates and criminal suspects — have commonly suffered forms of violence and abuse that violated our national principles. Some people are inside the protection of the law, and some are cast out from it.

We’re seeing a replay of that ugly history unfold along our southern border. If the Trump administration codifies its get-tough rhetoric into harsher policies, we will see far more allegations of human rights abuses against the men and women charged with securing our border. And we probably will rationalize it by claiming that those responsible are just a few bad apples rather than reckoning with the ways cruelty has been embedded in the policy itself. Like the euphemistic language of security, this choice allows us to avoid uncomfortable questions about our moral values.

In fact, we’ve already seen this pattern. Accusations of cruelty and torture by ICE and CBP agents have been circulating for years, and they follow this well-worn pattern. Official denials are followed by investigations that almost always find limited violations by “a few bad apples,” not the kind of systemic abuse that would call our broader policies into question.

This pattern has long historical roots: When investigations of police brutality in Washington during the 1930s revealed widespread use of abusive interrogation methods, the police superintendent, whose predecessors had dismissed similar allegations for decades, only grudgingly conceded that a few officers may have gone too far in their resolve to protect the public.

By seeing violations of human rights as rare exceptions, unfortunate lapses that don’t challenge our fundamental sense of decency, Americans can avoid any real reckoning with the policies we’ve approved — which often violate our purported values. Very few of the officers and soldiers responsible for the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in 1968 and none of the architects of the George W. Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation” policies have faced legal consequences. Even Jon Burge, a notorious ringleader of lawless police in Chicago during the 1970s and 1980s, was convicted of perjury for lying to police investigators rather than torturing countless suspects.

Focusing on bad apples has long allowed us to excuse morally bankrupt policies. We need to realize that human rights abuses on the southern border aren’t spurred by immoral actors in ICE or CBP, but rather because of a political leadership that can’t or won’t come up with humane immigration policies.

Congress needs to do its job and exercise scrupulous oversight of Trump’s immigration policies. But the real solution to our border crisis is to demand that all elected officials, from local sheriffs to senators, responsibly address immigration and human rights. Trump declared that he wants immigration to be a key campaign issue in 2020. His opponents should accept that challenge. We must shine a spotlight on cruel and illegal policies that undermine our national ideals and find the wisdom and the courage to do better.

****************************************

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight for human rights, the rule of law, accountability for Government scofflaws, and a return to basic human decency! Fight for a better future for ALL Americans!

PWS

05-07-19

THE HILL: Nolan On Pelosi’s Reaction To Trump’s “Sanctuary Cities” Threats — PLUS, “Bonus Coverage” From Tal @ SF Chron!

Family Pictures

Bizarro world: Pelosi angry over Trump plan to send illegal crossers to sanctuary cities. By Nolan Rappaport

Apparently, President Donald Trump is about to make life much easier for aliens with children who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.

The Flores Settlement Agreement prevents him from detaining, for more than 20 days, children apprehended after making an illegal crossing into the United States. And because all Hell broke loose when he separated the children from their parents, he is now releasing their parents, too.

But according to his tweets on Friday, that isn’t all he is going to do for them.

I’m sure he was being sarcastic when he said this should make them very happy, but it really should make the Democrats very happy. The government would be providing these families with free transportation to places that are welcoming undocumented aliens, i.e. the sanctuary cities.

In fact, many of them are headed for sanctuary cities anyway. In 2014, California, which is a sanctuary state, was home to between 2.35 million and 2.6 million undocumented immigrants. Nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants lived there. Roughly one in ten California workers was an undocumented immigrant. And the population of undocumented aliens in California has gotten even largersince then.

But it turns out that Trump was right: The Democrats are upset.

I was astonished to see an article entitled, “Pelosi fumes over White House plan to release immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities.”

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/438742-trump-proposes-transporting-illegal-crossers-to-sanctuary-cities-and

Published on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

*************************************

It’s always difficult to take anything Trump says seriously, particularly about immigration.

I think Pelosi was reacting to 1) the tone of Trump’s threat; 2) his use of human lives as pawns and bargaining chips (something he has done before with the Dreamers); 3) his continuing threats to misuse Presidential power to “punish enemies;” and 4) the lack of any serious coordination that would accompany a good faith plan.

On the other hand, as shown in this article by Tal Kopan of the SF Chronicle, California and San Francisco officials appear ready to welcome and help any migrants sent their way or who are released and choose to settle in California.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-s-idea-to-take-immigrants-to-sanctuary-13763811.php?t=29edb0e3ff

PWS

04-15-19

RADLEY BALKO @ WASHPOST EXPOSES THE RESTRICTIONISTS’ RACIALLY-DRIVEN BOGUS NARRATIVES: The thing to remember here is the only consistent principle behind immigration restrictionism is opposition to immigrants.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/13/immigration-opponents-any-old-argument-will-do/

Balko writes:

Opinions

For immigration opponents, any old argument will do

By Radley Balko

Opinion writer

March 13 at 2:03 PM

David Frum’s cover essay in the latest issue of the Atlantic calling for immigration restrictions is generating some well-deserved scorn. Even his central premise — that if liberals don’t enforce immigration laws, the nation will turn to fascists — is bedeviled by reality. President Trump, Fox News and the Republican Party tried with all their might to demagogue immigration before the midterm elections. The GOP got clobbered. Democrats did especially well in elections in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California, the states that border Mexico. In fact, all nine members of Congress who represent the districts along the Mexico border oppose funding for Trump’s border wall.

According to Gallup, 67 percent of Americans think immigration levels should either stay the same or increase, and 75 percent think immigration is a “good thing,” an all-time high. Over the past two years, the percentage who want to restrict immigration from current levels has averaged 30 percent, the lowest figure since Gallup began asking this question in 1965. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 61 percent of Americans think immigration helps the country more than it hurts, also an all-time high, and an incredible 49-point swing from 2005. There’s virtually no evidence that support for more immigration is a political liability, other than in Frum’s mind. At worst, an immigration supporter will lose the 30 percent of voters he or she would have lost anyway.

Frum’s essay also includes some bizarre, anti-historical observations. This one might be the strangest: “America was built on the revolutionary idea, never fully realized, that those who labor might also govern—that every worker should be a voter.” The United States was, of course, actually founded on the still-revolutionary — but not nearly as revolutionary — idea that every white, male landowner should be a voter. We weren’t even ready to admit that the people doing the most work at the time were full human beings. Not only was slavery thriving at the American founding, not only was it acknowledged and enshrined in the Constitution, but the effort to preserve the institution also formalized the bond between race, second-class citizenship and servitude. Even the Declaration of Independence, the founding document, was altered from Thomas Jefferson’s first draft to omit the word inherent as a descriptor of our rights, a nod to the fact that even the Enlightenment thinkers weren’t quite ready to recognize the existence of inalienable rights outside their immediate social status, much less to slaves.

In another fit of historical ineptitude, Frum pines for the years 1915 to 1975, a period of immigration restrictionism, which he bizarrely describes as the “years in which the United States became a more cohesive nation.” (Frum also conveniently leaves out how those policies were grounded in racism.) The economist Noah Smith obliterated this argument in a pretty devastating Twitter thread. This was a period of Jim Crow, lynching, red scares, the Depression, race riots, labor rights, mass incarceration, racial assassinations, internment camps and domestic terrorism. Under no circumstances would you describe it as an era of broad social cohesion.

If we wanted to look at the single metric most indicative of social cohesion, we’d probably look at murder rates. The U.S. homicide rate began to increase in the mid-1960s, then generally rose until it peaked with the crack epidemic in the early 1990s. Immigration began to increase in the early 1970s, but really began to soar in the 1990s. From about 1994 to about 2014, undocumented immigration soared while violent crime spiraled.

In fact, from about the late 1990s on, nearly every social indicator in the United States began to move in an encouraging direction — dropout rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, juvenile crime, rape, property crimes, you name it. Meanwhile, immigration boomed. I don’t think immigration caused all of those good things to happen. But Frum’s argument, that immigration unravels social cohesion, is simply contradicted by the data.

Frum goes on to list of a number of consequences of modern immigration, most of which Frum thinks bode ill for the sort of society to which Frum believes we should be aspiring. But most of the negative consequences Frum lists aren’t the result of immigrants themselves, but of people who share Frum’s view that we have too many immigrants. The line I quoted above, for example, is part of a broader argument Frum makes — because undocumented immigrants operated outside of the law, they aren’t afforded the same legal protection, social status and political representation as citizens and legal residents. But undocumented people live outside the law largely because (a) there is demand here for low-skilled workers, (b) it is virtually impossible for low-skilled workers to come here legally and (c) people who share Frum’s policy preferences have made it politically difficult to grant those who do come any sort of legal protection or political representation.

Frum also cherry-picks his data. He argues, for example, that employers in immigrant-heavy industries are shirking their safety obligations because immigrants lack the political power to demand or enforce regulations. He writes:

Forestry, fishing, and farming are three of the most dangerous industries in the United States. They are 46 percent reliant on immigrant laborers, half of them undocumented. (Documented and undocumented immigrants together make up only 17 percent of the U.S. workforce as a whole.) Building and grounds maintenance is surprisingly dangerous work: 326 people died in 2017. Some 35 percent of grounds workers are immigrants. About 25 percent of construction workers are immigrants, but immigrants supply almost half the workers in the most dangerous areas, notably roofing and drywalling. When so many workers in a job category toil outside the law, the law won’t offer much protection.

Note that Frum moves freely between percentages and raw numbers. Building and grounds maintenance may be “surprisingly dangerous work,” but without some other figures for context, 326 deaths is a meaningless statistic. How does that compare to other professions? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most dangerous class of occupations falls under the heading “transportation and moving materials.” This group of jobs accounted for nearly a quarter of worker deaths in 2017 — over four times as many workers died in that field as in maintenance. Within that field, the most dangerous sub-field is called “heavy tractor and trailer truck drivers.” And according to a 2012 American Community survey, immigrants make up less than 16 percent of truck drivers. If we look at rates, Frum’s argument also falls flat. The highest fatality rate is comparatively immigrant-spare transportation, at 15.9 deaths per 100,000 workers. Immigration heavy maintenance comes in at 6.6 deaths per 100,000.

There is some evidence that immigrant representation in even these fields is growing, as native-born Americans move out of blue-collar jobs and into more lucrative occupations. But Frum’s policy prescriptions will only exacerbate the very problems that allegedly worry him. Remember, Frum also suggests curbing legal immigration. Contrary to the claims of restrictionists, people don’t come to the United States to get free welfare and health care. Undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out, and are less reliant on social welfare than native-born Americans. People come to the United States — legally and illegally — when there is demand for their labor. When the jobs dry up, immigrants stop coming. If demand persists, and the number of legal avenues for immigration continue to dwindle, the immigrants won’t stop coming, they will just increasingly stop coming legally. That means more — not fewer — people in the shadows, unrepresented, unprotected and un-franchised.

But I think my favorite bit of Frum-ian logic comes when discussing the opioid epidemic:

Without the immigrant workers less prone to abuse drugs than the native-born, American elites might have noticed the opioid epidemic before it killed more Americans than died in the Vietnam, Korean, and Iraq Wars and the 9/11 attacks combined.

This is nonsense, on a number of levels. First, there’s little evidence that American elites “missed” the opioid epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been dutifully publishing overdose statistics each year, as it always has. I’ve talked to several medical examiners in recent years who believe the epidemic may even be overstated. Overdose isn’t always easy to diagnose, and because there’s a nationwide shortage of medical examiners, cause of death isn’t always the product of careful medical analysis so much as a rough guess by an elected coroner with little or no medical training. This isn’t to say that there’s nothing to worry about, but ask any pain patient who is struggling to find treatment — the opioid crisis has certainly not gone unnoticed.

More to the point, Frum’s argument here is a bit of rhetorical jujitsu. The nativist line has long been that immigrants — particularly those who are unskilled and undocumented — are diseased, crime-ridden and drug-addicted. Faced with evidence that immigrants are lesslikely to be addicted to opioids, Frum flips an asset into a liability. Now, the fact that immigrants don’t abuse drugs unfairly distracts elite attention from the native-borns who do.

It reminds me of one of my favorite-ever anti-immigration arguments, from longtime nativist Mark Krikorian. Back in 2004, Krikorian lamented over a Boston Globe story about how dedicated, hardworking immigrants were robbing native-born American teenagers a rite of passage — the privilege of slacking off at their first job. He wrote:

One economist said employers “like the fact that immigrants can work more hours and more shifts than teenagers.” A job counselor said “Typically when kids apply for a summer job they might want a week off to go to camp or do something else. I tell them, ‘You can’t do that. You are up against someone who is going to be there every day and you need to deal with that.’” As a result, the percentage of teenagers holding jobs is the lowest it’s been since statistics started being compiled in the 1940s.

Is it healthy for the future of our society to freeze our children out of low-wage, rite-of-passage jobs? When I was younger, I washed dishes in restaurants, packed tomatoes, did lawn work — this kind of thing is essential if we are to preserve a middle-class society that values work, rather than the Old World model that mass immigration is pushing us toward, where only inferiors ever get their hands dirty.

Of course, Krikorian also regularly argues that the same immigrants employers prefer because of their dedication and work ethic are simultaneously a drain on the welfare system.

The thing to remember here is the only consistent principle behind immigration restrictionism is opposition to immigrants. As a nativist, you’re free to argue that immigrants are both lazy and hardworking. They’re both assimilating too quickly and refusing to assimilate. They’re both violent drug pushers who are crowding our prisons, and they’re teetotaling law-abiders whose good citizenship is unfairly diverting attention from overdose deaths and mass incarceration among the native-born. Pick and chose these points as you need them. Any old argument will do.

*****************************************

Balko “outs” the kind of racist garbage that dangerous disingenuous dudes like Jeff Sessions, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach, Steve King, and their many apologists and enablers in the GOP have been spewing forth for years. Only now it’s been elevated to national policy, repeated by Trump, Administration dunderheads like Kristjen Nielsen, Sarah Sanders, L. Francis Cissna, E. Scott Lloyd, and even some supposedly brighter career officials at DHS who should know better. A very sad state of affairs, indeed!

The good news: The “high approval rate” for immigrants shows that the bogus White Nationalist narrative that appears to have helped Trump get elected might be failing this time around. On the other hand, Trump’s approval rate remains high among Republicans. That’s pretty disturbing!

PWS

03-15-19

INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”

http://time.com/longform/migrants/

Haley Sweetland Edwards writes in Time Magazine:

But they were willing to do whatever it took. Going back to Guatemala was simply not an option, they said. Monterroso explained that in October, their family was forced to flee after a gang threatened to murder the children if they didn’t pay an exorbitant bribe, five months’ worth of profits from their tiny juice stall. The family hid for a day and a half in their house and then sneaked away before dawn. “There is nobody that can protect us there,” Monterroso said. “We have seen in the other cases, they kill the people and kill their children.” Her voice caught. “The first thing is to have security for them,” she said of her kids, “that nothing bad happens to them.”

All told, more than 159,000 migrants filed for asylum in the U.S. in fiscal year 2018, a 274% increase over 2008. Meanwhile, the total number of apprehensions along the southern border has decreased substantially—nearly 70% since fiscal year 2000. President Donald Trump has labeled the southern border a national crisis. He refused to sign any bill funding the federal government that did not include money for construction of a wall along the frontier, triggering the longest shutdown in American history, and when Democrats refused to budge, he threatened to formally invoke emergency powers. The President says the barrier, which was the centerpiece of his election campaign, is needed to thwart a dangerous “invasion” of undocumented foreigners.

But the situation on the southern border, however the political battle in Washington plays out, will continue to frustrate this U.S. President, and likely his successors too, and not just because of continuing caravans making their way to the desert southwest. Months of reporting by TIME correspondents around the world reveal a stubborn reality: we are living today in a global society increasingly roiled by challenges that can be neither defined nor contained by physical barriers. That goes for climate change, terrorism, pandemics, nascent technologies and cyber-attacks. It also applies to one of the most significant global developments of the past quarter-century: the unprecedented explosion of global migration.

. . . .

They abandoned their homes for different reasons: tens of millions went in search of better jobs or better education or medical care, and tens of millions more had no choice. More than 5.6 million fled the war in Syria, and a million more were Rohingya, chased from their villages in Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands fled their neighborhoods in Central America and villages in sub-Saharan Africa, driven by poverty and violence. Others were displaced by catastrophic weather linked to climate change.

Taken one at a time, each is an individual, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, hope and despair. But collectively, they represent something greater than the sum of their parts. The forces that pushed them from their homes have combined with a series of global factors that pulled them abroad: the long peace that followed the Cold War in the developed world, the accompanying expansion of international travel, liberalized policies for refugees and the relative wealth of developed countries, especially in Europe and the U.S., the No. 1 destination for migrants. The force is tidal and has not been reversed by walls, by separating children from their parents or by deploying troops. Were the world’s total population of international migrants in 2018 gathered from the places where they have sought new lives and placed under one flag, they would be its fifth largest country.

The mass movement of people has changed the world both for better and for worse. Migrants tend to be productive. Though worldwide they make up about 3% of the population, in 2015 they generated about 9% of global GDP, according to the U.N. Much of that money is wired home—$480 billion in 2017, also according to the U.N.—where the cash has immense impact. Some will pay for the passage of the next migrant, and the smartphone he or she will keep close at hand. The technology not only makes the journey more efficient and safer—smugglers identify their clients by photos on instant-messaging—but, upon arrival, allows those who left to keep in constant contact with those who remain behind, across oceans and time zones.

Yet attention of late is mostly focused on the impact on host countries. There, national leaders have grappled with a powerful irony: the ways in which they react to new migrants—tactically, politically, culturally—shape them as much as the migrants themselves do. In some countries, migrants have been welcomed by crowds at train stations. In others, images of migrants moving in miles-long caravans through Central America or spilling out of boats on Mediterranean shores were wielded to persuade native-born citizens to lock down borders, narrow social safety nets and jettison long-standing humanitarian commitments to those in need.

. . . .

The U.S., though founded by Europeans fleeing persecution, now largely reflects the will of its Chief Executive: subverting decades of asylum law and imposing a policy that separated migrant toddlers from their parents and placed children behind cyclone fencing. Trump floated the possibility of revoking birthright citizenship, characterized migrants as “stone cold criminals” and ordered 5,800 active-duty U.S. troops to reinforce the southern border. Italy refused to allow ships carrying rescued migrants to dock at its ports. Hungary passed laws to criminalize the act of helping undocumented people. Anti-immigrant leaders saw their political power grow in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Italy and Hungary, and migration continued to be a factor in the Brexit debate in the U.K.

These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.

. . . .

But protocols and treaties can, at best, hope to respond to the human emotions and hard realities that drive migration. No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented Monterroso and Calderón, or Yaquelin and Albertina Contreras, or Sami Baladi and Mirey Darwich from leaving their homes. Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children.

The question now is whether the world can come to define the enormous population of international migrants as an opportunity. No matter when that happens, Eman Albadawi, a teacher from Syria who arrived in Anröchte, Germany, in 2015, will continue to make a habit of reading German-language children’s books to her three Syrian-born kids at night. Their German is better than hers, and they make fun of her pronunciation, but she doesn’t mind. She is proud of them. At a time when anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise, she tells them, “We must be brave, but we must also be successful and strong.” —With reporting by Aryn Baker/Anröchte, Germany; Melissa Chan, Julia Lull, Gina Martinez, Thea Traff/New York; Ioan Grillo/Tijuana; Abby Vesoulis/Murfreesboro, Tenn.; and Vivienne Walt/Paris •

***********************************************

I strongly encourage everyone to read Haley’s outstanding article at the link. It is one of the best and most easily understandable explanations of a complex phenomenon that I have seen recently. As I always say, “lots of moving parts.” But Haley and her colleagues have distilled the fundamental truths concealed by this complexity. Congrats and appreciation to Haley and everyone who worked on this masterpiece!

Haley debunks and eviscerates the restrictionist, racist “fear and loathing” baloney that Trump and his White Nationalist gang peddle. The simple truth always has been and continues to be that America needs more immigration.

The only real question is whether we are going to be smart and funnel it into expanded legal and humanitarian channels or dumb like Trump and push the inevitable migration into an extra-legal system. The latter best serves neither our country nor the humans pushed into an underground existence where they can be exploited and are artificially prevented from achieving their full potential for themselves and for us. Right now, we have a mix skewed toward forcing far, far too many good folks to use the extra-legal system.

We’ll only be able to improve the situation by pushing the mix toward the legal and the humanitarian, rather than the extra-legal. That’s why it’s virtually impossible to have a rational immigration debate with folks like Trump who start with the racist-inspired fiction that migrants are a “threat” who can be deterred, punished, and diminished.

Contrary to Trump and the White Nationalists, the real immigration problems facing America are 1) how can we best integrate the millions of law-abiding and productive undocumented individuals already residing here into our society, and 2) how can we most fairly and efficiently insure that in the future individuals like them can be properly screened and come to our country through expanded humanitarian and legal channels. Until we resolve these, American will continue to founder with immigration and fail to maximize its many benefits. That’s bad for us, for migrants, and for the future of our nation.

As a reminder, in the context of Congressional negotiations on border security, I recently put together a list of “practical fixes” to the immigration system which would address border security, humanitarian relief, and improved compliance with Constitutional Due process without major legislative changes — mostly “tweaks” and other common sense amendments that would make outsized improvements and certainly would be an improvement on squandering $5.7 billion and getting nothing but a largely symbolic “instant white elephant” border wall in return. So, here it is again in all its hypothetical glory: “THE SMARTS ACT OF 2019:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3E3

SECURITY, MIGRATION ASSISTANCE RENEWAL, & TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ACT (“SMARTS ACT”) OF 2019

Federal Employees

Restart the Government

Retroactive pay raise

Enhanced Border Security

Fund half of “Trump’s Wall”

Triple the number of USCIS Asylum Officers

Double the number of U.S. Immigration Judges and Court Staff

Additional Port of Entry (“POE”) Inspectors

Improvements in POE infrastructure, technology, and technology between POEs

Additional Intelligence, Anti-Smuggling, and Undercover Agents for DHS

Anything else that both parties agree upon

Humanitarian Assistance

Road to citizenship for a Dreamers & TPSers

Prohibit family separation

Funding for alternatives to detention

Grants to NGOs for assisting arriving asylum applicants with temporary housing and resettlement issues

Require re-establishment of U.S. Refugee Program in the Northern Triangle

Asylum Process

Require Asylum Offices to consider in the first instance all asylum applications including those generated by the “credible fear” process as well as all so-called “defensive applications”

Immigration Court Improvements

Grants and requirements that DHS & EOIR work with NGOs and the private bar with a goal of achieving 100% representation of asylum applicants

Money to expand and encourage the training and certification of more non-attorneys as “accredited representatives” to represent asylum seekers pro bono before the Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts on behalf of approved NGOs

Vacate Matter of A-B-and reinstate Matter of A-R-C-G-as the rule for domestic violence asylum applications

Vacate Matter of Castro-Tum and reinstate Matter of Avetisyan to allow Immigration Judges to control dockets by administratively closing certain “low priority” cases

Eliminate Attorney General’s authority to interfere in Immigration Court proceedings through “certification”

Re-establish weighing of interests of both parties consistent with Due Process as the standard for Immigration Court continuances

Bar AG & EOIR Director from promulgating substantive or procedural rules for Immigration Courts — grant authority to BIA to promulgate procedural rules for Immigration Courts

Authorize Immigration Courts to consider all Constitutional issues in proceedings

Authorize DHS to appeal rulings of the BIA to Circuit Courts of Appeal

Require EOIR to implement the statutory contempt authority of Immigration Judges, applicable equally to all parties before the courts, within 180 days

Bar “performance quotas” and “performance work plans” for Immigration Judges and BIA Members

Authorize the Immigration Court to set bonds in all cases coming within their jurisdiction

Fund and require EOIR to implement a nationwide electronic filing system within one year

Eliminate the annual 4,000 numerical cap on grants of “cancellation of removal” based on “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”

Require the Asylum Office to adjudicate cancellation of removal applications with renewal in Immigration Court for those denied

Require EOIR to establish a credible, transparent judicial discipline and continued tenure system within one year that must include: opportunity for participation by the complainant (whether Government or private) and the Immigration Judge; representation permitted for both parties; peer input; public input; DHS input; referral to an impartial decision maker for final decision; a transparent and consistent system of sanctions incorporating principles of rehabilitation and progressive discipline; appeal rights to the MSPB

International Cooperation

Fund and require efforts to work with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other countries in the Hemisphere to improve asylum systems and encourage asylum seekers to exercise options besides the U.S.

Fund efforts to improve conditions and the rule of law in the Northern Triangle

**********************************************

No, it wouldn’t solve all problems overnight. But, everything beyond “Trump’s Wall” would make a substantial improvement over our current situation that would benefit enforcement, border security, human rights, Due Process, humanitarian assistance, and America. Not a bad “deal” in my view!

***********************************

PWS

01-27-19

GEORGE WILL @ WASHPOST: AMERICA’S “CLOWN PRINCE” 🤡

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

George Will writes:

Half or a quarter of the way through this interesting experiment with an incessantly splenetic presidency, much of the nation has become accustomed to daily mortifications. Or has lost its capacity for embarrassment, which is even worse.

If the country’s condition is calibrated simply by economic data — if, that is, the United States is nothing but an economy — then the state of the union is good. Except that after two years of unified government under the party that formerly claimed to care about fiscal facts and rectitude, the nation faces a $1 trillion deficit during brisk growth and full employment. Unless the president has forever banished business cycles — if he has, his modesty would not have prevented him from mentioning it — the next recession will begin with gargantuan deficits, which will be instructive.

The president has kept his promise not to address the unsustainable trajectory of the entitlement state (about the coming unpleasant reckoning, he said: “Yeah, but I won’t be here”), and his party’s congressional caucuses have elevated subservience to him into a political philosophy. The Republican-controlled Senate — the world’s most overrated deliberative body — will not deliberate about, much less pass, legislation the president does not favor. The evident theory is that it would be lèse-majesté for the Senate to express independent judgments.

And that senatorial dignity is too brittle to survive the disapproval of a president not famous for familiarity with actual policies. Congressional Republicans have their ears to the ground — never mind Winston Churchill’s observation that it is difficult to look up to anyone in that position.

The president’s most consequential exercise of power has been the abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, opening the way for China to fill the void of U.S. involvement. His protectionism — government telling Americans what they can consume, in what quantities and at what prices — completes his extinguishing of the limited-government pretenses of the GOP, which needs an entirely new vocabulary. Pending that, the party is resorting to crybaby conservatism: We are being victimized by “elites,” markets, Wall Street, foreigners, etc.

After 30 years of U.S. diplomatic futility regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, the artist of the deal spent a few hours in Singapore with Kim Jong Un, then tweeted: “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” What price will the president pay — easing sanctions? ending joint military exercises with South Korea? — in attempts to make his tweet seem less dotty?

Opinion | Trump owns the Republican Party, and there’s no going back

President Trump has irreversibly changed the Republican Party. The upheaval might seem unusual, but political transformations crop up throughout U.S. history. (Adriana Usero, Danielle Kunitz, Robert Gebelhoff/The Washington Post)

By his comportment, the president benefits his media detractors with serial vindications of their disparagements. They, however, have sunk to his level of insufferable self-satisfaction by preening about their superiority to someone they consider morally horrifying and intellectually cretinous. For most Americans, President Trump’s expostulations are audible wallpaper, always there but not really noticed. Still, the ubiquity of his outpourings in the media’s outpourings gives American life its current claustrophobic feel. This results from many journalists considering him an excuse for a four-year sabbatical from thinking about anything other than the shiny thing that mesmerizes them by dangling himself in front of them.

Dislike of him should be tempered by this consideration: He is an almost inexpressibly sad specimen. It must be misery to awaken to another day of being Donald Trump. He seems to have as many friends as his pluperfect self-centeredness allows, and as he has earned in an entirely transactional life. His historical ignorance deprives him of the satisfaction of working in a house where much magnificent history has been made. His childlike ignorance — preserved by a lifetime of single-minded self-promotion — concerning governance and economics guarantees that whenever he must interact with experienced and accomplished people, he is as bewildered as a kindergartener at a seminar on string theory.

Which is why this fountain of self-refuting boasts (“I have a very good brain”) lies so much. He does so less to deceive anyone than to reassure himself. And as balm for his base, which remains oblivious to his likely contempt for them as sheep who can be effortlessly gulled by preposterous fictions. The tungsten strength of his supporters’ loyalty is as impressive as his indifference to expanding their numbers.

Either the electorate, bored with a menu of faintly variant servings of boorishness, or the 22nd Amendment will end this, our shabbiest but not our first shabby presidency. As Mark Twain and fellow novelist William Dean Howells stepped outside together one morning, a downpour began and Howells asked, “Do you think it will stop?” Twain replied, “It always has.”

**********************************

Stripped of its detracting “jabs at the opposition” and the “obligatory swat” at the essential safety net that actually keeps America functioning, even in tough political times like these, Will largely has Trump “pegged.” As others and I have said, the Trump Administration is “Kakistocracy in action.”

But, what took you so long, George, to “get religion?” For years, the GOP has been pushing a “soulless,” intentionally divisive, program of “beggar thy neighbor” and promoting the “worst in America.”

It’s not like equally sad and unfit GOP politicos such as Steve King, Tom Trancedo, Roy Moore, Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach, Corey Stewart, and Stephen Miller just “hatched” during the Trump regime. Trump is the logical outcome of a “valueless conservatism” that has embraced some of the vilest individuals and ideas in modern American political history in a (somewhat successful) minority attempt to seize power from the majority of Americans and to govern against the overall public interest.

No surprise that a party bankrupt of both constructive conservative ideas and morality should end up installing a sad an unqualified character like Trump as its “Supreme Leader.” Trumpism is deeply rooted in modern American conservatism, not the “compassionate” kind of Bush I (which unfortunately was “DOA” within the party) but the vile brand that glosses over its racial and class overtones and its erroneous conception that the rich have every right to loot America and leave the crumbs to everyone else.

Yes, I think that America needs and deserves a credible “conservative movement” to engage in an honest governing dialogue with the Democrats. What might that conservative movement look like:

Constructive concern about runaway deficits and borrowing from the PRC;
Recognition of the threat that Russia and the PRC are to America’s future;
Commitment to secular governing principles (perhaps embodying, but not improperly favoring, some religious values) and support of the rights of all covered by our Constitution regardless of status;
Encouraging and enabling all qualified Americans to vote;
Congress retaking the authority to declare war and pass budgets and restricting Executive overreach (by both parties) in these areas;
Prudence in entering into future “foreign military adventures;”
A robust, effective, and efficient national defense that is held accountable for expenditures, strategies, and results;
Maintenance, funding, improvements, and accountability mechanisms for adequate safety net programs including social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare;
An end to unnecessary tax breaks for the rich that strip the U.S. Treasury of necessary revenues without advancing any national agenda;
An end to “Government shutdown” forever and a pledge to respect the contributions of “America’s Crown Jewel:” our nonpartisan, professional, honest Civil Service;
Return of some authority to states, not as a device for “bogus” budget savings and to screw the poor and minorities, but to recognize and take advantage of areas where states are committed to actually funding and carrying out programs that produce better (not just cheaper) results than the Feds can;
Much more robust legal immigration and refugee acceptance programs;
A sharp reduction in wasteful funding for Federal detention of all kinds (including immigration detention) and the mandated use of alternatives that will work and benefit society;
Encouraging educational and economic development initiatives by the private sector in economically depressed areas (such as the Midwest and Appalachia) ;
Encouraging a robust trade agenda that provides mutual benefits to both the U.S. and our trading partners.

That would involve not only ditching Trump, but also abandoning the racially charged, fiscally wasteful, White Nationalist agendas that drive both him and his base and committing to governing in the public interest — in and of itself a key conservative principle.

We need an end to the “Clown Kakistocracy.” And, that will require some honest conservative support by a “new conservative” movement. I doubt that it can be headed by Trump sycophant, xenophobic enabler, and far right religious bigot Veep Mike Pence. Perhaps, however, folks like George have a constructive role to play in fashioning, inspiring, and leading it!

PWS

01-21-19

CREEPY NEO-NAZI GOP REP STEVE KING HAS BEEN PEDDLING HIS VILE MESSAGE OF RACIAL HATRED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE — The GOP Is Belatedly Shamed Into Taking Action Against Him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/15/king-toppled-what-now/

Jennifer Rubin writes in the Washington Post:

Opinions

Steve King was toppled. But what now?

By Jennifer Rubin

Opinion writer

January 15 at 9:45 AM

The Post reports:

A panel of Republican leaders voted unanimously Monday to keep veteran Iowa lawmaker Steve King off House committees, a firm rebuke to an influential opponent of illegal immigration who sparked outrage last week after openly questioning whether the term “white supremacist” was offensive.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the decision by the Republican Steering Committee, which seats lawmakers on House committees, followed his own recommendation and was meant to send a message about the GOP at large.

“That is not the party of Lincoln,” he said of King’s comments. “It is definitely not American. All people are created equal in America, and we want to take a very strong stance about that.”

One is tempted to ask: Why only now? The decision was made after Democrats threatened to bring a motion of censure, and more egregiously, after years of King’s blatantly racist comments. This is a man who met with an Austrian far-right politician who had been active in neo-Nazi circles in his youth and declared that he’d be a Republican if he were an American.

Democrats still might press for further action against King. (“[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi on Monday left open the possibility that there could be votes on multiple sanctions for King, ranging from disapproval to censure.”) Whether Democrats proceed or not, the party of Lincoln has an elephant-size problem that dwarfs King.

If King’s defense of “white nationalism” is not acceptable, why do Republicans tolerate and extol a president who declared there to be some “fine people” among neo-Nazis, called African and Caribbean nations “shithole countries,” equated Mexican immigrants with rapists, repeatedly questioned African American critics’ IQ, asserted a federal court judge of Mexican descent to be unable to perform his job, created a conspiracy to delegitimize the first African American president, started a running battle with African American athletes who kneel to protest police brutality and fails to employ any high-level African American staffer? Why do they tolerate a president who recently declared, “If Elizabeth Warren, often referred to by me as Pocahontas, did this commercial from Bighorn or Wounded Knee instead of her kitchen, with her husband dressed in full Indian garb, it would have been a smash”?

Moreover, Republicans have spent three-plus years telling us that words don’t really matter, that tweets don’t matter. If we now agree that the words of an Iowa congressman matter a great deal, they’re going to have a hard time sticking to the view that the words of the president of the United States shouldn’t be held against him.

King is a minor-league racist, a buffoon; but President Trump leads their party. Ever since he made birtherism his signature issue and rode down the gold escalator to disparage Mexicans, Republicans have rationalized or ignored his blatant racism (and we haven’t even gotten to the nonstop misogyny).

When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says of King, “I have no tolerance for such positions, and those who espouse these views are not supporters of American ideals and freedoms,” one has to ask why he tolerates Trump and undoubtedly will support his reelection. If Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) agrees that King should resign, surely he should say the same of Trump, whose words carry far more weight and who defines Romney’s party.

Republicans should have disowned Trump long ago. The good news: There is still time. No elected Republican should support Trump’s reelection for the very same reason that they belatedly took action against King. A major political party should not stand by racists.

Republicans have to decide once and for all whether they want to be the party of white grievance and racist dog-whistles and bullhorns. So long as they stand with Trump and accept the support of racists, they cannot seriously claim to be the party of Lincoln. And if it’s not the party of Lincoln, why exactly do we need a Republican Party?

********************************************

King has the public persona of a dead eel, and represents a politically insignificant rural district. By contrast, Donald Trump is a media megastar and holds the office of President. Otherwise, there is little difference between them as racist provocateurs.

Trump basically took King’s message, effectively changed “Make America White Again” to “Make America Great Again,” and mass marketed it to a racially motivated base in locations strategically calculated to enable him to achieve electoral success with a minority of the votes.

So, why did the GOP act now? Well, one reason could be the harsh criticism that African-American GOP Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina directed at King. Scott is a rarity in today’s GOP: a person of color who matters. Unlike King, Scott is politically critical to the GOP with a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate. Indeed, Scott recently teamed up with the Dems and several of his more moderate GOP colleagues to defeat one of Trump’s most blatantly racist judicial candidates. So, he’s not someone GOP Congressional leadership wants to mess with (particularly since Scott is otherwise willing to mindlessly line up with Trump on measures that disproportionately harm minorities in addition to being bad for the majority of Americans).

Also, King’s “foot in mouth” style keeps reminding Americans of the seamy side of Trump’s political support at inopportune times. While the GOP these days is always happy to play the “race card” when convenient and necessary, they would much prefer that it be played by Trump to rev up his base and get out the vote than by a minor and politically unappealing figure like King.

King’s demise is long overdue good news for America. But, I would neither give the GOP much credit nor expect them to take any action against the chief purveyor of lies, false narratives, and racial hatred in their party — Trump. Rubin said it simply and eloquently: “A major political party should not stand by racists.” Is anybody out there in the GOP listening?

PWS

01-15-19

JIM WALLIS @ SOJOURNERS: Things Will Get Worse Under Trump; Moral Resistance Is Essential: “[Trump] almost perfectly exemplifies the worst of America — the ugliest things in our history and the greatest dangers to our future.“

https://sojo.net/articles/its-going-get-worse-america-it-gets-better-2019-opportunity

Jim Wallis writes:

Most people have consistently underestimated Donald Trump. When he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by attacking and demonizing non-white immigrants, people should have understood that Trump would likely win the Republican nomination and possibly the election.

Why? Because Donald Trump appeals to the worst of America. His promotion of fear, division, hate, racism, xenophobia, rallying of white nationalism, mistreatment of women, purposeful denial of truth, and consummate love of money, power, and fame are, of course, nothing new in America. Neither are his desire to destroy democracy, love for authoritarian rulers or desire to be one. Indeed, there is nothing new about Donald Trump, but he almost perfectly exemplifies the worst of America — the ugliest things in our history and the greatest dangers to our future.

Now let’s move from the political and moral to the theological and spiritual: These traits and actions also represent the worst of humanity. To seek money and power over all else, to consistently put yourself over all others, to make private self-interest the only the goal of life and overturn any sense of the common good, to create conflict to win and make all others into losers, to constantly lie and try to kill the truth, to make exploitation and abuse the definition of sexuality, to be as violent in word and deed as you can get away with, to never answer to God or seek forgiveness — there are examples of these sins throughout the Bible and human history. They are also, unfortunately, what our country’s leader seems to stand for, what he promotes in our culture, and what he models for our children.

Given all of this, we are in great danger. Strongmen are rising all over the world, and Donald Trump supports them — and even wants to be one of them. Trump started out the New Year tweeting the country’s support to Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new right-wing nationalist leader. Just this week, he articulated an ahistorical understanding of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that seemed to condone or even endorse the Soviet action. His version of that chapter in world history is one that sounds much closer to what Moscow propaganda might say rather than what an American president or relatively neutral historians would describe. Among the current global strongmen, Trump is certainly not the most intelligent, but he may be the most dangerous because of his political position.

READ: #EleNão Movement Confronts ‘Brazilian Trump’

Strongmen, autocrats, and dictators don’t all do the same things. They do whatever they can to maximize their own wealth, power, and fame. The only thing that prevents them from going as far as they can is the resiliency of a society’s institutions and social sectors — like the media, the judiciary, political parties, law enforcement, civil society, and places of vocational or historical moral authority like faith communities.

So how are we faring on those fronts?

Press: In our current political situation, a new generation of young reporters are showing great resiliency in the new Trump era, revealing the facts that undermine official lies and offering analysis that seeks to hold power accountable.

Judiciary: Trump appointments at the Supreme Court and Circuit Court levels are gradually politicizing the judiciary to rule in favor of his interests, white interests, and corporate interests.

Political Parties: After winning the midterm elections, the Democratic Party has retaken the House of Representatives. For the first time, we have 100 women in the Congress and the most diverse House in our history. With Speaker Nancy Pelosi retaking the gavel, we will now see what kind of checks and balances to the executive branch that can provide. But the Republican Party has been taken over by the president’s base and retained a Senate majority that has been unwilling to oppose him — or ever vote to remove him from office, which only the Senate can do with a 2/3 majority vote, even if the House were to impeach him.

Law Enforcement: Trump has continued to attack the Justice Department and relentlessly seeks to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation into his campaign’s involvement with Russia. Trump’s behavior in response to the investigation of him and his campaign puts the rule of law into jeopardy, depending on how his administration reacts to the results and reports of the Robert Mueller-led investigation.

Civil Society: Will the civil society seek to hold the government responsible for civility in the way that it governs? So far, nonprofit organizations focused on good government, exposing corruption, and protecting the vulnerable have done important work in galvanizing massive protests at key moments of danger or significance, as well as leading or joining key court cases that have sought to rein in some of the worst travesties of the administration, like the monstrous policy of family separation at the border.

Faith Communities: On the religion side, white evangelicals have been the most supportive of Trump as their Religious Right has entered a transactional, Faustian bargain with his administration, agreeing to look away from Trump’s immoral behavior and brutal treatment of those Jesus called “the least of these” in exchange for the judicial appointments and conservative economic policies they support. Others, like the Reclaiming Jesus movement, with Sojourners involvement, have proclaimed that the gospel itself is at stake in the faith community’s response to Trump. This year will be “an hour of decision,” to use Billy Graham’s old language, for the faith community’s testimony in the face of Donald Trump’s corrupt and cruel practices and policies, which are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

WATCH: Reclaiming Jesus in a Time of Crisis

In 2019, I believe things are going to get worse in America before they get better. We now face grave dangers to democracy itself, and to societal moral decency. But that danger also provides us an opportunity: to go deeper into our faith and into our relationships to each other, especially across racial lines, and into relationship with the most vulnerable people in our society — a practice our faith says will change us. If we do go deeper, this moment could become a movement for all the things that many of us have consistently lived and fought for all our lives. If we don’t go deeper, but just continue to react or ultimately retreat into frustration and cynicism, we will indeed be in great danger.

Many of us faith leaders believe a constitutional crisis is coming in 2019, which will also create a crisis of faith to which we will be called to respond. A dangerous overreach of presidential power could come in response to the ultimate results of the Special Counsel’s report and potential further indictments of Trump’s associates, potentially his family members, or even himself for criminal behavior. Attempts to cover up or obscure the results could be a serious obstruction of justice that undermines the very rule of law in this country. We could also see other executive overreaches like choosing to shut down the government over vanity projects, the prosecution of dangerous wars, the censorship of the press, attacks on opponents, more assaults on migrants and the most vulnerable, and, most frighteningly, the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

If we start to see that executive overreach as distraction, there must be a moral response. And the response of faith communities could be a game changer. I believe it is time to prepare for that response from the followers of Jesus. Stay tuned and prayerfully get ready.

Jim Wallis

Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His new Audible spoken-word series, Jim Wallis In Conversation, is available now, as is his book, America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a

***********************************

Amen! That’s why the efforts of the New Due Process Army are so important to the survival of our republic.

PWS

01-06-19

CHRISTMAS EVE @ COURTSIDE: A Muslim Gets The Message Of Christ Better Than Many Christians!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/opinion/muslim-christian-trump-supporters.html

By Wajahat Ali

NY Times Contributing Opinion Writer

Dec. 22, 2018

Image

A Christmas nativity scene.CreditCreditAmir Levy/Getty Images

At Bellarmine, an all-boys Catholic school in San Jose, Calif., I was often the token Muslim and probably the only person who began freshman year thinking the Eucharist sounded like the name of a comic book villain. I eventually learned it’s a ritual commemorating the Last Supper. At the monthly Masses that were part of the curriculum, that meant grape juice and stale wafers were offered to pimpled, dorky teenagers as the blood and body of Christ.

During my time there, I also read the King James Bible and stories about Jesus, learned about Christian morality, debated the Trinity with Jesuit priests and received an A every semester in religious studies class. Twenty years later, I can still recite the “Our Father” prayer from memory.

Growing up, I’d been taught that Jesus was a major prophet in Islam, known as “Isa” and also referred to as “ruh Allah,” the spirit of God born to the Virgin Mary and sent as a mercy to all people. Like Christians, we Muslims believe he will return to fight Dajjal, or the Antichrist, and establish peace and justice on earth. But it was everything I learned in high school that came together to make me love Jesus in a way that made me a better Muslim.

Even though I don’t personally celebrate Christmas, the season always makes me think of his legacy of radical love. This year, it’s especially hard to understand how Trump-supporting Christians have turned their back on that unconditional love and exchanged it for nativism, fear and fealty to a reality TV show host turned president.

According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted in January, 75 percent of white evangelicals in the United States — compared with 46 percent of American adults over all — said “the federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants” was a positive thing. Sixty-eight percent of them believe America has no responsibility to house refugees, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in April and May.

The numbers aren’t quite as jarring when we look at different slices of religious America. According to a PRRI poll conducted in late August and early September, 59 percent of Catholics and 75 percent of black Protestants view Trump negatively. Still, I can’t fathom how anyone who knows the Jesus I encountered at Bellarmine could be comfortable with this administration.

Jesus was a humble carpenter from Nazareth who miraculously fed 5,000 people but never humiliated them with condescending lectures about God favoring those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Mr. Trump has expressed enthusiasm for gutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, by adding unnecessary and cruel work requirements for food stamp recipients.

Mr. Trump also chose Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who admitted he isn’t qualified to run a federal agency, to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Dr. Carson, who says his Christian faith helps him “serve the nation even better,” tweeted he’s “moving more people toward self-sufficiency” by advocating huge cuts to housing aid, increased rent and more stringent work requirements. In high school, I must have missed the sermon where Jesus told the poor, hungry and homeless to stop asking God for handouts.

President Trump and Republicans have also waged a nonstop war on Obamacare for nine years, allowing 14 states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, leaving four million eligible Americans unable to enroll. The Jesus I met in high school healed a blind man. Guess what he didn’t do? Rail against the socialist evils of taking care of people’s health.

The Jesus I know commanded, “You shall love your neighbors as yourself.” He didn’t add “unless they are undocumented immigrants or Muslim or gay.” He would welcome refugees from Central America, feed them, wash their feet. He would have been horrified at the conditions that led 7-year-old Jakelin Caal to die of dehydration and shock in Border Control custody after seeking refuge in this country with her father.

Christianity isn’t unique: Every religion is abused as such by some of its followers and manipulated to advance political agendas. But the hypocrisy of white Evangelical Christians’ support for Trump in light of his undeniable cruelty and apathy — toward refugees, Puerto Rican citizens recovering from a devastating hurricane, victims of California fires and a newspaper columnist killed by Saudi Arabia — is too much to bear. Despite this barrage of hate, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham still support Mr. Trump because they believe he “defends the faith.” How?

Our school’s motto was “Men for others,” a reminder that the Christian faith should be lived through active selfless service. Judging from the type of Christianity that is practiced and preached by some Trump supporters, they must know a Jesus whose message is “Every man for himself.”

At Bellarmine, we had to perform 100 hours of community service before graduating. I volunteered at the senior center and the local homeless shelter, where my friends and I cleaned the kitchen and packed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for struggling men and women, most of them eager for employment.

This Christmas, I hope Trump-supporting Christians try to find compassion for people who are similarly suffering. I hope they open their Bible and reflect on James 2:14: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?”

Thankfully, I know many Christians who resemble Jesus, investing their life to uplifting vulnerable people. Mr. Trump’s supporters should meet Sister Simone Campbell, who in 2012 organized Nuns on the Busto oppose the Paul Ryan-backed budget plan’s assault on social programs for the poor. They should join the Rev. William Barber II of North Carolina, who has revived the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign to fight racism and income inequality. They should donate to Sister Norma Pimental of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, which runs a “respite center” in McAllen, Tex.,offering food, clothes and shoes to people seeking asylum.

These are the kinds of Christians who I believe are following the lessons and footsteps of Jesus, the prophet I met and loved as a Muslim at a Catholic high school. This Christmas, I hope some of the Christians who support President Trump can meet him too.

Wajahat Ali is a playwright, lawyer and contributing opinion writer.

*******************************************

There’s no doubt that if Jesus were here today he’d be holed up with the migrants waiting on the Mexican side of our Southern Border for a chance at justice or whiling aways the hours in DHS detention. One place he’d never be found would be in the West Wing, Mar A Lago, or any far right Evangelical Church that preaches doctrines of exclusion, intolerance, and “beggar thy neighbor.”

And when his time came, Jesus, as a scruffy, unemployed, uneducated, single Palestinian male who led a ragtag band of similarly unemployed men and was considered to be a subversive by the authorities would be given short shrift by the U.S. system and returned to those who would torture and kill him.

Something to think about.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

PWS

12-24-18

🎄👍😎

NATION’S SHAME: ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY OF CRUELTY TOWARD CHILDREN WILL HAUNT US FOR MANY YEARS: “What the Trump administration does is force Americans to fight for things that should be uncontroversial, common-sense humanitarian principles; we now spend so much time reacting to a new set of atrocities that there is no energy left for anything else.”

https://apple.news/A9OIp3x0DQLqC27X2vxP05A

Jay Willis writes in GQ:

This fall, after national outrage over the Trump White House’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy forced it to begrudgingly wind down the practice of separating families at the border, administration officials began looking for a new method of implementing xenophobia as official government policy. They found it, apparently, by recruiting volunteers to serve as temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors—and then, if volunteers’ background checks indicated that they were undocumented, detaining those people and preparing them for deportation.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 170 individuals who offered to open up their homes—again, to children, many of whom were in federal custody because of the aforementioned separation policy, and who were otherwise forced to live in tent camps and converted warehouses until their immigration status could be resolved—have been arrested over the past few months for their displays of kindness. Of that group, 109 had no criminal record whatsoever.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported the death of a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl who, along with her father and a larger group of immigrants, turned herself in to Border Patrol agents in a remote area of New Mexico last week. More than eight hours later, she began having seizures; first responders found that she had a fever of 105.7 degrees and hadn’t had food or water in days. She went into cardiac arrest and died of shock and dehydration shortly thereafter.

The agency’s response, which is laden with all the meaningless corporate bromides typically deployed to convey the appearance of sincerity, is more or less “tough shit”:

I suppose the events of this year should have dispelled the notion that when it comes to immigration, anyone associated with this regime would be inclined to momentarily suspend their prejudices to do a kind and decent thing. Yet somehow, the disgracefulness of DHS’s sting operation is still astonishing. The purpose of releasing kids to “qualified adults” is to make life better for innocent children, victims of a broken system in which they have no voice; literally the only relevant question is Will this person provide a safe place for them to live? But the administration cannot stop itself, this time preying on the basic human instinct to care for children, all in the service of rounding up a few more brown people.

The Chronicle notes that the number of children in custody has increased over the past few months—a trend observers blame on the spike in these background-check arrests. This means that despite the official end of the family-separation policy, more kids are being held in overcrowded jails, because their captors have cut off the power of otherwise willing caretakers to do anything about it. If you are lucky and don’t die in Border Patrol custody, a different set of government policies ensures that you’re still going to languish there for the foreseeable future.

There are bills on Capitol Hill that would bar DHS from doing this sort of thing. In the Senate, nine Democrats have signed on to the Families Not Facilities Act, first introduced in November, while in the House, 39 Democrats and two Republicans—both of whom just lost their re-election bids—are co-sponsors of an analogue. “Right now, unaccompanied children are being held in detention facilities or living in tent cities due in part to potential sponsors’ fear of retribution from ICE,” said California senator Kamala Harris in November. “This is an unacceptable obstacle to getting these children into a safe home, and we must fix it.”

The power of bigotry lies in the persistence of those who implement it—in their willingness to commit to it at all times, no matter the circumstances, no matter how dangerous or unconscionable, so as to never invite uncomfortable questions about why bigotry is acceptable in the first place. Death becomes just a risk that prisoners choose to assume, and volunteer caregivers open themselves up to the possibility of becoming prisoners as well.

What the Trump administration does is force Americans to fight for things that should be uncontroversial, common-sense humanitarian principles; we now spend so much time reacting to a new set of atrocities that there is no energy left for anything else. It is a policymaking war of attrition, and its goal is less to change people’s minds than it is to wear them out.

*******************************************

Yup. Well said!

There is only one “right side of history” on this one. Sure it’s exhausting and frustrating to spend energy that should be spent on improving the system for everyone instead resisting gross violations of legal, Constitutional, and human rights engineered by a White Nationalist regime. But, that’s what the New Due Process Army, “Our Gang,” and many others on the right side of history are all about!

PWS

12-16-18

TAL @ SFCHRON: N. Cal. Immigration Arrests Lag National Stats – No Obvious Explanation – Increases Come Almost Exclusively From Non-Criminals – No Obvious Benefit To Anyone Except Restrictionist Pols!

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Are-sanctuary-laws-driving-down-immigration-13467855.php

Are sanctuary laws driving down immigration arrests in Northern California?

Tal Kopan Dec. 14, 2018

WASHINGTON —Immigration arrests fell in Northern California in the past year even as arrests nationally rose 11 percent, a trend that may be linked to tightening sanctuary laws that limit local cooperation with U.S. deportation agents.

But while fewer people in the region were arrested overall, arrests of noncriminal immigrants went up, according to data released Friday, reflecting Trump administration policies that anyone in the country without documentation is a target for enforcement.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement office that oversees Northern California was one of only a handful nationally to see fewer arrests in the 2018 fiscal year — which ended Sept. 30 — than in 2017. The 14 percent drop in arrests was the steepest decline in the country.

The office, based in San Francisco, was also the only one in the country to post fewer arrests in 2018 than fiscal 2016, the last under President Barack Obama.

Under President Trump, arrests of undocumented immigrants, especially noncriminal ones, have been steadily climbing, as he has made immigration enforcement and border security his central pitches to voters.

Overall, ICE arrested nearly 160,000 immigrants last fiscal year, 34 percent of whom had no criminal convictions. That was an 11 percent increase in arrests overall, but was almost entirely driven by the surge in arrests of noncriminal immigrants. Arrests of those with a criminal conviction slightly trailed the year before.

The story was similar for deportations, which were up overall nationally but dipped slightly in Northern California.

Trump and his deputies have declared that no undocumented immigrant is exempt from the government’s grasp, a change from a policy adopted late in President Obama’s administration that focused ICE’s efforts and finite resources primarily on criminals.

The administration has focused particular ire toward sanctuary cities and has clashed repeatedly with Bay Area and California officials over their policies. The administration sued unsuccessfully to try to block California’s sanctuary law from going into effect after Gov. Jerry Brown signed it in late 2017, and engaged in a heated back-and-forth with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf this year after she issued a preemptive public warning about a planned immigration sweep in the region.

It’s difficult to know why San Francisco lagged behind the rest of the country in arrests, but sanctuary laws could be a factor, especially those that limit cooperation between local jails and ICE officers who want to pick up undocumented inmates. ICE officials did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment.

The data varied substantially by region. The San Diego sector saw among the biggest increases in arrests in the past year, up 32 percent overall with noncriminals representing more than half of those arrested, a jump that could be related to surges of migrants arriving at the border there.

The Los Angeles office, however, was more in line with San Francisco. There, ICE made 7 percent fewer arrests in fiscal 2018, though the agency also arrested a slightly higher number of noncriminal immigrants.

Former Obama administration ICE Director John Sandweg said regions rarely see varying numbers due to conscious decisions.

“It certainly isn’t, and almost never is a, ‘Hey guys, let’s do more or less in this area of responsibility.’ That’s just not the way it works,” Sandweg said.

His best guess to explain the discrepancy in Northern California was the limitation on ICE’s access to jails. Having to arrest more immigrants in the community takes more time and resources than the “efficient” handover of an immigrant in a jail, he said.

That could also explain why more noncriminal immigrants got caught up in the crosshairs, he added.

“This is an unintended consequence of sanctuary policies that I’m not sure is always thought through,” Sandweg said. “If you say no to picking up people in jail, there are going to be some dangerous people we feel compelled to get, so when you do that, you’re not just exposing those dangerous people to ICE but their family, their friends, their neighbors.”

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan

*********************************************************

Other possible explanations for the pattern of non-criminal arrests in Northern California:

Retaliation for “Sanctuary Cities” laws and for suits finding Sessions’s “Anti-Sanctuary Crusade” illegal;
Need to meet “arrest quotas” for annual bonuses (just like U.S. Immigration Judges, except they are ineligible for bonuses — but the Director and other “Managers” in Falls Church can pocket some extra cash by revving up removals to please the DOJ politicos).

I also wouldn’t put too much store on the so-called “criminal arrest” numbers put out by DHS either. DHS tends to jack up numbers by concentrating on relatively minor offenders rather than hunting down the real “bad guys” which tends to produce lower numbers.

Indeed, in the Federal bureaucracy the “quantity” that produces budget increases is almost always in tension with “quality” which is harder to quantify and certainly harder for Congressional staff to comprehend and “sell” and for individual legislators to take credit. For example, Session’s wasteful program of prosecuting first time border jumpers for misdemeanors probably produced lots of bogus “criminal removals” and perhaps some “criminal arrests” without actually accomplishing anything useful. Indeed most evidence suggests that while wasting time on Sessions’s “racist follies,” Federal prosecutors actually reduced investigation and prosecution of real crimes (e.g. serious felonies) in Federal Courts. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/08/as-zero-tolerance-cases-skyrocket-other-prosecutions-slow/

Indeed, I surmise that an objective study of DHS’s civil, non-criminal enforcement activities would actually show little if any net benefit from leaving U.S. families without one or both parents, taking productive workers out of their jobs, and spreading fear and distrust of local police in ethnic communities. Just how that benefits anyone in the U.S. except Trump and his White Nationalist cronies isn’t apparent to me.

We also should throw in all of the legal time and court time wasted by the DOJ and other Federal prosecutors in tying up the Federal Courts with semi-frivolous litigation to advance their often illegal White Nationalist agenda. If those resources were instead dedicated to getting individuals in Immigration Court represented and improving the quality of Due Process and independence in Immigration Court, we’d be on the way to solving at least one phase of the immigration mess created largely by Congress and the last three Administrations.

For the last two years, DHS Enforcement has been operating largely without any rational enforcement objectives or professional supervision in a Department where management failure, fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic. Some meaningful oversight by the House and some requirement for rational planning, prudent use of taxpayers’ money, and accountability would be most welcome.

PWS

12-15-18

CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: Trump’s Immigration Restrictionism Is Destroying America, One Dumb White Nationalist Scheme At A Time! – How Racist Stupidity Is Sending “The Best & Brightest” Students Elsewhere, To Our National Detriment! — A WINNER OF THIS WEEK’S “FIVE CLOWNS” AWARD!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/one-of-americas-most-successful-exports-is-in-trouble/2018/12/13/f7234e8c-ff1b-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.9b66721395b9

Catherine writes:

One of America’s most successful exports is in trouble.

For decades, the U.S. higher-education system has been the envy of the world. We “sell” much more education to other countries than we “buy” from them; nearly three times as many foreign students are currently studying here as we have abroad.

In trade terms, this means we run a massive surplus in education — about $34 billion in 2017, according to Commerce Department data. Our educational exports are about as big as our total exports of soybeans, coal and natural gas combined.

But all that may be at risk.

A recent report from the from the Institute of International Education and the State Department found that new international student enrollments fell by 6.6 percent in the 2017-2018 school year, the second consecutive year of declines. A separate, more limited IIE survey of schools suggests that the declines continued this fall, too.

To be sure, some of the forces behind these decreases are beyond our (or President Trump’s) control. Some foreign governments, such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia, have reduced the scholarships that previously sent significant numbers of students to the United States, according to Peggy Blumenthal, senior counselor to the president at IIE.

China, whose students represent about a third of U.S. international student enrollment, has been investing in improving its own domestic university system, too.

But according to the schools that are now watching the trend, the biggest forces deterring international students are U.S. policy and U.S. culture.

“They see the headlines and they think that they’re no longer wanted in the United States,” said Lawrence Schovanec, president of Texas Tech University, whose foreign student enrollment declined by 2 percent this year. Sixty percent of schools with declining international enrollment, in fact, said that the U.S. social and political environment was a contributing factor, according to the IIE survey.

The most frequently cited issue, however, was “visa application process or visa issues/delays.” In the fall 2018 survey, 83 percent of schools named this as an issue, compared with 34 percent in fall 2016.

Problems began — but didn’t end — with Trump’s Muslim ban. Schools have seen students trapped abroad and have since advised some students not to go home before graduation lest they get stuck trying to come back. Said Bennington College President Mariko Silver, “We’ve seen individual students who have contacted us with the desire to come and have pulled out of the process.”

Boo-hoo, Trump supporters might say. What’s the big deal if some foreigners stay home?

Forget the feel-good explanations about how international students enrich the campus environment (which I don’t dispute). The students who come here also spend cold, hard cash: on tuition, travel, books, food, housing.

A lot of jobs depend on those students. American colleges and universities alone employed 3 million people in 2017. For context, that dwarfs the entire agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector.

And contrary to perceptions that foreign students take spots that belong to Americans, at many schools they’re enabling more American students to get a degree.

In the years after the financial crisis, as states slashed budgets for higher education, schools helped make up the shortfall by enrolling more out-of-state and international students. These students generally pay full tuition, and their higher fees are used to cross-subsidize lower, in-state tuition rates (and scholarships) of American classmates.

No wonder that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently paid $424,000 to insure itself against a significant drop in tuition revenue from Chinese students.

More significantly, a continued drop-off in international students could cause serious pain beyond academia.

Foreign students come here in part because they’re interested in staying after graduation and working here. They disproportionately study fields that U.S. employers demand, and that U.S. students avoid. Foreign students now represent a majority of computer science and engineering graduate programs at U.S. universities, for instance.

That talent pipeline may be drying up.

Foreigners are experiencing more visa issues not only when they apply to study but also when they apply to stay and work. That might be one reason more than half of the decline in total enrollment last year was due to fewer students from India in computer science and engineering grad programs.

Our loss has become other countries’ gain. We’re still the top destination for foreign students, but Australia and Canada have each seen their international enrollments rise by double-digit percentages in the past year. They’re enticing students in word and in deed, with messages of welcome and expedited visas.

Trump likes to say that our allies are taking advantage of us on trade. In this case, would you really blame them?

**********************************************

Yup. “Bad things happen” when countries allow themselves to be ruled by bad leaders whose policies are driven by irrational fear, racism, and nationalist jingoism. They lose out to countries whose policies are governed by “enlightened self-interest” and a sense of belonging to a larger community.

Great job by Catherine of picking up on a “below the radar” way in which Trump is destroying America.

For its toxic mix of stupidity, xenophobia, racism, and incompetence in its policies toward nonimmigrant students, the Trump Administration earns this week’s coveted “Five Clowns Award!”

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

12-14-18

LITTLE SUPPORT AMONG AMERICANS FOR TRUMP’S WHITE NATIONALIST SCHEME OF SLASHING LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

https://apple.news/A0qG8LufUToKIgRLhjfQEIw

Mariana Alfaro reports in Business Insider:

Americans are more open to increased immigration than most Europeans, though far more people around the world would like to see a decrease in immigration overall, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center.

Pew surveyed 27 countries this spring on their views on immigration. Together, Pew reported, these 27 countries house more than half of the world’s international migrants. Of those surveyed, 45% said fewer or no immigrants should be allowed into their country while 36% said they want just about the same number of immigrants – including the U.S.

Among European countries, 82% of Greeks said they would like fewer immigrants to be allowed into the country, which has, since 2015, struggled with a surge of migrants and refugees escaping civil war in Syria. Nearly three-quarters of Hungarians, 71% of Italians, and 58% of Germans also believe fewer immigrants should be allowed to move to their countries, which have also been heavily affected by the refugee crisis.

In the U.S., only 29% of Americans want a decrease in immigration while 44% think about the same amount of immigrants should be allowed in. Nearly a quarter of Americans want immigration to increase. In Mexico, currently facing a surge in Central American migrants, 44% of those surveyed said they wanted immigration to decrease in the country, while 42% said they wanted it to stay the same.

Read more: Jeff Sessions said immigrants should ‘wait their turn’ to come to the US – here’s how complicated that process can be

Spain and Japan are among the most open to the idea of increased immigration, with 28% and 23% of their respective populations opting for more open borders. Japan, known for its isolationist policies and historically low immigration numbers, is currently facing a dire economic threat – its population is getting older.

The Pew report also found that outmigration is widely seen as a problem among the nations surveyed. Greeks (89%) and Spaniards (88%) are the most worried about the number of people leaving their countries, which Pew reported have seen an increase in people moving abroad in recent years. Eight out of 10 Mexicans also see outmigration as a problem. Mexico, according to the United Nations, has one of the largest numbers of people living outside their country, second only to India. But only 64% of those surveyed by Pew in India think outmigration is a problem.

Published on December 10, the report came out the same day global representatives gathered in Morocco to sign the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The non-legally binding agreement, backed by Angela Merkel, was created to manage migration for both origin and destination countries but was rejected by several nations, including the U.S., Chile, and Australia.

*******************************************************

While there was little appetite (likely almost none outside of Trump’s base) for the restrictionist scheme to slash legal immigration, there also is a cautionary note for immigrants’ advocates who believe in increases in legal immigration levels; a significant plurality of Americans want to maintain legal immigration at current levels.

Consequently, even though more legal immigration channels appear to me to be 1) in our best economic interests; 2) a way of reducing “extralegal immigration;” 3) helpful in focusing the resources we spend on immigration enforcement; and 4) our destiny as a “nation of immigrants” if we wish to maintain a position of leadership among nations, there is some persuasion to be done before that’s likely to become a political reality.

PWS

12-14-18

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: DHS’S ARROGANT “IN YOUR FACE” APPROACH TO “PEREIRA NOTICE” CASES APPEARS TO BE BACKFIRING WITH ARTICLE IIIs — US District Judge in Nevada Latest To Find That “Pereira Defective NTAs” Gave Immigration Judge No Jurisdiction Over Removal Case!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/8/interpreting-pereira-a-hint-of-things-to-come

I haven’t posted for a while. I’ve been extremely busy, but there was something else: my response to so many recent events has been just pure anger. Although I’ve written the occasional “cry from the heart,” I don’t want this blog to turn into the rantings of an angry old man.

So I resume posting with a case that provides a glimmer of hope (and, hopefully, a hint of things to come?). Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a court generally known for its conservatism, issued an order granting an emergency stay of removal in the case of Manuel Leonidas Duran-Ortega v. U.S. Attorney General. As is common in such types of grants, the three-judge panel issued a decision consisting of two sentences, granting the stay, and further granting the request of interested organizations to allow them to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief.

What made this decision noteworthy is that one of the judges on the panel felt the need to write a rather detailed concurring opinion. Among the issues discussed in that opinion is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions (which I wrote about here: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/9/1/the-bia-vs-the-supreme-court) on Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case. As in Pereira, the document filed by DHS with the immigration court in order to commence removal proceedings lacked a time and date of hearing. In her concurring opinion, Judge Beverly B. Martin observed that under federal regulations, jurisdiction vests, and immigration proceedings commence, only when a proper charging document is filed. The document filed in Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case purported to be a legal document called a Notice to Appear. But as Judge Martin noted, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira appears to suggest, as Duran-Ortega argues, that self-described “notice to appears” issued without a time or place are not, in fact, notice to appears” within the meaning of the statute.

Judge Martin (a former U.S. Attorney and Georgia state Assistant Attorney General) continued that the Pereira decision “emphasized” that the statute does not say that a Notice to Appear is “complete” when it contains a time and date of the hearing; rather, he quotes the Pereira decision as holding that the law defines that a document called a “Notice to Appear” must specify “at a minimum the time and date of the removal proceeding.” The judge follows that quote with the highlight of her decision: “In other words, just as a block of wood is not a pencil if it lacks some kind of pigmented core to write with, a piece of paper is not a notice to appear absent notification of the time and place of a petitioner’s removal proceeding.”

As this Reuters article reported (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-terminations/u-s-courts-abruptly-tossed-9000-deportation-cases-heres-why-idUSKCN1MR1HK) enough immigration judges had a similar reading of Pereira to terminate 9,000 removal cases in the two months between the Supreme Court’s decision and the issuance of a contrary ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which the BIA’s judges, out of fear of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, chose appeasement of their boss over their duty to reach fair and independent decisions.

Judge Martin referenced that BIA decision, Matter of Bermudez-Cota, but stated: “This court need not defer to Bermudez-Cota if the agency’s holding is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations involved, or if its holding is unambiguously foreclosed by the law…In light of Pereira and the various regulations and statutes at issue here, it may well be the case that deference is unwarranted.”

For those readers who are not immigration practitioners, attorneys with ICE (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) (which is part of the Department of Justice, along with the BIA) have been filing briefs opposing motions to terminate under Pereira using language best described as snarky. A recent brief fled by OIL called the argument that proceedings commenced with a document lacking a time and date must be terminated under Pereira “an unnatural, distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion,” and a “labored interpretation of Pereira.” A brief recently filed by ICE called the same argument an “overbroad and unsupported expansion of Pereira [which] is unwarranted and ignores the Court’s clear and unmistakable language.”

There is an old adage among lawyers that when the facts don’t favor your client, pound the law; when the law doesn’t favor your client, pound the facts; and when neither the law nor the facts favor your client, pound the table. I find the tone of the government’s briefs as sampled above to be the equivalent of pounding the table. The government is claiming that to interpret the Supreme Court’s language that “a notice that lacks a time and date is not a Notice to Appear” as meaning exactly what it says is an unnatural, distorted interpretation that is labored and ignores the clear language of the Court. The government then counters by claiming that the natural, obvious, clear interpretation is the exact opposite of what Pereira actually says.

So although it is just the view of one judge in one circuit in the context of a concurring opinion, it nevertheless feels very good to see a circuit court judge calling out the BIA, OIL, and DHS on their coordinated nonsense. Three U.S. district courts have already agreed with the private bar’s reading of Pereira, in U.S. v. Virgen Ponce (Eastern District of Washington); in U.S. v. Pedroza-Rocha (Western District of Texas); and just yesterday, in U.S. v. Soto-Mejia (D. Nev.). At this point, this is only cause for cautious optimism. But as an immigration lawyer named Aaron Chenault was articulately quoted as saying in the above Reuters article, for now, Pereira (and its proper interpretation by some judges) has provided “a brief glimmer of hope, like when you are almost drowning and you get one gasp.” Well said.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

JEFF CHASE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL SOTO-MEJIA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00150-RFB-NJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

December 6, 2018

ORDER

        Before the Court is Mr. Soto-Mejia’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 21] the Indictment in this case, for the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.

        I. Factual Findings

        Based upon the record, including the joint stipulation of fact submitted by the parties [ECF No. 41], the Court makes the following factual findings. Mr. Soto-Mejia was encountered by immigration officials on February 7, 2018 in California. On that same day, February 7, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear for Removal Proceedings (NTA) against Soto-Mejia. The Notice to Appear stated that Soto-Mejia was to appear before an immigration judge on a date and time “[t]o be set” and at a place “[t]o be determined.” Soto-Mejia was personally served with the Notice to Appear at 10400 Rancho Road in Adelanto, California, 92401. The Notice to Appear contained allegations and provided a potential legal basis for Soto-Mejia’s removal from the United States. The Notice to Appear was filed with the Immigration Court in Adelanto, California on February 12, 2018.

        On February 27, 2018 an order advancing the removal hearing was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. On February 27, 2018, a letter entitled “Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings” addressed to Soto-Mejia at the Adelanto Detention Facility on 10250 Rancho Road

Page 2

in Adelanto, California, 92301 was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. The letter indicated that a hearing before Immigration Court was scheduled for March 7, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing did not reference the nature or basis of the legal issues or charges for the removal proceedings. The Notice of Hearing also did not reference any particular Notice to Appear.

        On March 7, 2018, the “Order of the Immigration Judge” indicates that Soto-Mejia appeared at the Immigration Court hearing and that he was ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Soto-Mejia was deported on March 8, 2018. Subsequently, Soto-Mejia was encountered in the United States again and was ordered removed on March 19, 2018. The March 19 Order, as a reinstate of the prior order, derived its authority to order removal from the March 7 Order. The Indictment in this case explicitly references and relies upon the March 7 and March 19 removal orders as a basis for establishing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by Soto-Mejia.

        II. Legal Standard

        Since a prior order of removal is a predicate element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal order.United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a collateral challenge to a deportation order, the individual must demonstrate that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies he could have used to challenge the order (or is excused from such exhaustion); (2) the deportation proceedings deprived the individual of judicial review (or is excused from seeking judicial review); (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. 1326(d); Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680.

        A removal order is “fundamentally unfair” if (1) an individual’s due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying proceeding, and (2) the individual suffered prejudice as a result. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1048.

        III. Discussion

        The Defendant argues that this case must be dismissed because his criminal prosecution derives from a defective immigration proceeding in which the immigration court did not have

Page 3

jurisdiction to commence removal proceedings against him because the Notice to Appear initiating the proceeding was defective. He argues that the March 7 Order is thus void as the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order. He further argues that, as the initial March 7, 2018 deportation order is void, the subsequent reinstatement removal order of March 19, 2018 is also void as it derived its authority from the March 7 Order. Specifically, Soto-Mejia argues that the initial Notice to Appear that issued in his case did not include a time and location for the proceeding. Relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018), Soto-Mejia argues that a notice to appear must contain a location and time for a removal hearing in order to create jurisdiction for the immigration court. Id. at 2110. As the Notice to Appear in this case did not contain such information, the immigration court, according to Soto-Mejia, did not have jurisdiction to issue a removal or deportation order.

        The government responds with several arguments. First, the government argues that Soto-Mejia waived his argument regarding jurisdiction—claiming that it is personal rather subject matter jurisdiction which is at issue—by not raising a jurisdictional objection in the immigration proceeding and conceding to the immigration court’s jurisdiction by appearing. Second, the government avers that the immigration court’s jurisdiction is determined by the federal regulations and that the Notice to Appear in this case contained the information it must pursuant to those regulations to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b) and (c). Third, the government argues that the holding in Pereia is limited to the cases in which a court must determine the validity of a particular notice to appear as it relates to the triggering of the “stop-time rule.” Id. at 2116. Fourth, the government argues that there is no prejudice to Soto-Mejia as any defect was cured by the Notice of Hearing and Soto-Mejia’s participation in the removal proceedings. The Court rejects all of the government’s arguments.

        A. The Removal Orders of March 7 and March 19 Violated Due Process As the Immigration Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction

        The Court finds that Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira to be applicable and controlling in this case. First, the Court finds pursuant to the plain language of the regulations that the jurisdiction of the immigration court “vests” only “when a charging document is filed with the

Page 4

Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.14. A “Notice to Appear” is such a “charging document.” Id. at § 1003.13. Relying upon the reasoning of Pereira, this Court finds that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” is controlled by statute and not regulation, as the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Pereira the regulation-based interpretation by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (2011). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-14. And, pursuant to Pereira, a Notice to Appear must include the time and location for the hearing. Id. at 2114-17. As the Notice to Appear in this case failed to include the time and location for the hearing, the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue its March 7 deportation order.

        The Court rejects the government’s argument that Soto-Mejia waived his jurisdictional argument by not raising it earlier and by participating in the underlying immigration proceeding. The government’s argument conflates personal jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction. Soto-Mejia’s argument is founded upon his assertion that the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and not personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a limitation on “federal power” that “cannot be waived” so “a party does not waive the requirement [of subject matter jurisdiction] by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 702-03 (1982). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation establishing the immigration court’s jurisdiction explicitly notes that an immigration court’s authority only “vests” with the filing of a “charging document” and the regulation makes no reference to a waiver exception to this requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a).

        The Court also rejects the government’s argument that the holding in Pereira is limited to cases determining the applicability of the stop-time rule. As noted, the Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira was based upon the plain language of the text of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 and 1003.14 and 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-13. Section 1003.13 specifies which documents can constitute a “charging document” for immigration proceedings after April 1, 1997. The parties all concede in this case that the only document in this record that is a “charging document” is the Notice to Appear. Id. The Court in Pereira explained that the text of Section 1229(a) lays out the statutory definition of and requirements for a “Notice to Appear” which includes the time and

Page 5

location for the hearing. 138 S. Ct. at 2114. The Supreme Court unambiguously proclaimed: “A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a).“‘” Id. at 2113-14 (emphasis added). While the Supreme Court applied this definition to the determination of the applicability of the stop-time rule, the express language of this holding does not suggest any limitation on the Court’s definition of what is and is not a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) with respect to the requirement for the notice to contain a time and location.

        There is no basis to assume or conclude that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) would be different without reference to the stop-time rule. That is because the fundamental question that the Supreme Court was answering in Pereira is whether a notice must contain the time and location of the hearing to be a “notice to appear” under Section 1229(a). 138 S. Ct. at 2113-17. In answering this foundational question, the Court did not rely upon the stop-time rule to determine the definition of a notice to appear under Section 1229(a). To the contrary, the Court spent considerable time explaining why consideration of the stop-time rule’s “broad reference” to all of the paragraphs of Section 1229(a) did not alter the fact that the essential definition of and requirements for the notice arise in the first paragraph. 138 S. Ct. at 2114 (noting that the “broad reference to §1229(a) is of no consequence, because as even the Government concedes, only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a ‘notice to appear'”). This first paragraph requires that the notice contain the time and location for the removal proceeding.

        The Court is also unpersuaded that a defect in a “Notice to Appear” can be ‘cured’ as the government suggests by the filing and/or serving of the Notice of Hearing on Soto-Mejia. That is because such an argument is contrary to the plain text of the regulation, Section 1003.14(a), which unequivocally states that an immigration court’s jurisdiction only “vests” or arises with the filing of a “charging document.” A Notice of Hearing is not one of the “charging documents” referenced in Section 1003.13. A Notice of Hearing cannot therefore commence an immigration proceeding by subsequently providing a time and location for a removal hearing. Consequently, if the immigration court’s jurisdiction never arose because the Notice to Appear was invalid, then there is no proceeding in which a Notice of Hearing could properly be filed. There is nothing to cure.

Page 6

        Moreover, the Court also finds that the Notice of Hearing in this case did not reference a specific Notice to Appear. Indeed, the government conceded and the Court finds that the Notice of Hearing form does not generally, or in this case, reference a prior specific Notice to Appear and it does not contain information about the legal issues or charges which serve as a basis for the removal proceedings. The two documents only common identifying information is the A-file number of the particular person—Soto-Mejia in this case. This means that if an individual had multiple potential charges or legal issues related to his immigration status, the Notice of Hearing could not inform him about which charges were at issue in the upcoming hearing and the Notice of Hearing could be filed months or years after the Notice to Appear. Indeed, this is the very reason that the Supreme Court in Pereira rejected the argument that the “Notice to Appear” did not have to include the time and location of the removal proceeding, because that would defeat the ultimate objective of requiring notice—allowing the person to prepare for the hearing and potentially consult with counsel. 138 S. Ct. at 2114-15. As the Court noted, if there was no requirement for this information “the [g]overnment could serve a document labeled ‘notice to appear’ without listing the time and location of the hearing and then, years down the line, provide that information a day before the removal hearing when it becomes available.” Id. at 2115. Under such an interpretation “a noncitizen theoretically would have had the ‘opportunity to secure counsel,’ but that opportunity will not be meaningful” as the person would not truly have the opportunity to consult with counsel and prepare for the proceeding.” Id. As a Notice of Hearing, like the one here, is not explicitly connected to a particular Notice to Appear and the associated charges, the Court finds that it cannot serve to ‘cure’ a defective Notice to Appear such as in this case.

        B. The Defendant Suffered Prejudice¹

        The Court further finds that the Soto-Mejia suffered prejudice as a result of the defect in the underlying proceeding. Specifically, he was subjected to removal twice based upon the initial

Page 7

March 7 Order which the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue. The government’s argument that Soto-Mejia was not prejudiced because he “participated” in the removal proceedings misses the point. It is immaterial if he participated in the proceedings. He suffered prejudice by the issuance of the deportation orders because the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order his removal on March 7, 2018.

        IV. Conclusion

        For the reasons stated, the Court finds that the March 7 and March 19 deportation orders are void due to the immigration court’s lack of jurisdiction. As these orders are void, the Court finds that the government cannot establish a predicate element—the prior removal or deportation of Soto-Mejia—of the sole offense in the Indictment. The Indictment in this case must therefore be dismissed.

        Accordingly,

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Indictment in this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as this Court has no authority to detain Defendant Soto-Mejia pursuant to this case, he is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.

        DATED this 6th day of December, 2018.

        /s/_________

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

——–

Footnotes:

        ^1. The Court finds that Soto-Mejia is not required to have exhausted any possible administrative remedies, because (a) the Supreme Court decision in Pereira issued after his March 7, 2018 proceeding and (b) defects as to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. at 702-03.

************************************

Unlike the BIA’s convoluted reasoning in Matter of Bemudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), Judge Boulware’s analysis is very straightforward and complies with both the statutory language and the Supreme Court decision. What’s not to like about that?

As I’ve pointed out before, Sessions was so busy artificially “jacking up” the backlog and intimidating the Immigration Judges working for him that he never bothered to address the many solvable legal and administrative problems facing the Immigration Courts. That could mean not only more failed criminal prosecutions, but perhaps more significantly, could invalidate the vast majority of the 1.1 million case backlog that Sessions artificially increased with his short-sighted, racially motivated “gonzo” polices and interpretations.

And Whitaker is following in his footsteps by taking issues off the “restrictionist checklist” for screwing asylum seekers and migrants, rather than addressing the real legal and administrative deficiencies that make the Immigration Court a parody of justice in America.

Sadly, I wouldn’t expect any improvement under Barr, whose recent totally revolting “paean to Jeff Sessions” (co-authored with former GOP AGs Meese & Mukasey) projects that until we get “regime change,” justice in America will continue to be reserved for well-to-do straight evangelical White men. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-can-look-back-on-a-job-well-done/2018/11/07/527e5830-e2cf-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.aaad2f8e6250

People of color and other vulnerable minorities should continue to beware of the “Department of Injustice.”

Here’s a very compelling article by ACLU Legal Director David Cole on why Bill Barr is likely to be a “Button Down Corporate Version of Jeff Sessions.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/no-relief-william-barr-bad-jeff-sessions-if-not-worse

Darn, perhaps carried away with all the tributes to Bush I, I had hoped for a conservative, law enforcement oriented, but non-racist, non-White-Nationalist approach to immigration. Something like firm, but fair, unbiased, professional, and rationally managed. Guess that just isn’t going to happen under a GOP that has made racist appeals, xenophobia, false narratives, and anti-democracy part of its official agenda. I have a tendency to give everyone the “benefit of the doubt” at least until proven otherwise. I guess I have to alter that when dealing with anyone associated with today’s GOP.

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

PWS

12-10-18

US DISTRICT JUDGE TIGAR STUFFS ADMINISTRATION SCOFFLAWS’ STAY REQUEST!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/asylum-injunction-ruling-immigration/index.html

Ariane de Vogue and Geneva Sands, report for CNN:

Washington (CNN)A federal judge in California on Friday left in place a nationwide injunction that blocks the President’s asylum restrictions from going into effect.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said the government had not shown that the President’s policy “is a lawful exercise of Executive Branch authority.”

Lawyers for the Department of Justice had asked Tigar to lift his temporary restraining order — issued November 19 — while the appeals process plays out.

But Tigar refused to do so, holding that the government had failed to convince him that asylum seekers with legitimate claims would not suffer “significant harms” due to the new policy.

RELATED: Trump rails against 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in wake of asylum ruling

The move comes after President Donald Trump lashed out last week at Tigar, and said he would ultimately prevail in the case before the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, Trump signed a proclamation that would have prevented most migrants who crossed the southern border illegally from seeking asylum.

The American Civil Liberties Union immediately sued the administration on behalf of asylum assistance groups in California. Within 10 days of the President’s proclamation, Tigar granted the ACLU’s request for a temporary restraining order. The policy has since been in legal limbo.

“We are pleased the district court continues to recognize the harm that will occur if this illegal policy goes into effect,” ACLU lead attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement Friday.

Asked for comment, the Justice Department referred CNN to a statement issued by Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford after the temporary restraining order was issued, which says in part: “Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year. As the Supreme Court affirmed this summer, Congress has given the President broad authority to limit or even stop the entry of aliens into this country.”

When he issued his order on November 19, Tigar said the Trump administration policy barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside legal checkpoints “irreconcilably conflicts” with immigration law and the “expressed intent of Congress.”

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border” if the administration’s rule is allowed to go into effect.

On behalf of the administration, Department of Justice attorneys had argued that the court’s injunction “directly undermines the President’s determination that an immediate temporary suspension of entry between ports of entry is necessary to address the ongoing and increasing crisis facing our immigration system.”

****************************************************

The statements issued by the DOJ and DHS claiming that there are “tens of thousands of meritless asylum applications” are misleading, at best. While it is true that more asylum applications are denied than are granted, (a stark reversal of the situation only a few years ago), that by no means makes them “meritless” or means that the individuals didn’t have a right to have their cases fairly adjudicated under our laws.

Indeed, the latest TRAC statistics showing a continuously declining asylum grant rate under Trump, notwithstanding worsening conditions in the Northern Triangle and in most other asylum sending countries, strongly suggests that it is the Government’s bias and blatant politicization of the Immigration Court system that is the real abuse here.

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/

Clearly, Session’s perversion of the law and facts in Matter of A-B- in an effort to deny protection to one of the most clearly persecuted groups in the world — women who are victims of gender based persecution in the forms of domestic violence — is a prime example of the type of improper racist-inspired political meddling that has been allowed to take place. It has destroyed the remaining integrity of the Immigration Court system, as well as endangered the lives of many deserving refugees in need of protection to which they are legally entitled but are being denied for improper reasons. When history eventually sorts out this sordid episode, the racist officials and the “go along to get along” judges and other government officials will be clearly identified for what they are.

The idea that the U.S. Government, which has purposely created a bogus “emergency” at the Southern Border with the political stunt of sending troops rather than Asylum Officers and Judges, is preposterous! While the poor asylum seekers face a genuine danger intentionally and cynically created by Trump and his White Nationalists, they pose no real threat to the U.S. Fortunately, Judge Tigar saw through the Administration’s contemptuous threats and disingenuous arguments to the contrary.

PWS

111-30-18

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight for human rights, the rule of law, accountability for Government scofflaws, and a return to basic human decency! Fight for a better future for ALL Americans!

Related posts:

Related posts:

For immigration opponents, any old argument will do

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Steve King was toppled. But what now?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

Related posts:

Related posts: