"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Dan De Luce and Julia Edwards Ainsley report for NBC News:
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugeesdid not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.
Hard-liners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.
At a meeting in September 2017 with senior officials discussing refugee admissions, a representative from the National Counterterrorism Center came ready to present a report that analyzed the possible risks presented by refugees entering the country.
But before he could discuss the report, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dismissed the report, saying her boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would not be guided by its findings.
“We read that. The attorney general doesn’t agree with the conclusions of that report,” she said, according to two officials familiar with the meeting, including one who was in the room at the time.
Brand’s blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department’s view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.
“She just dismissed them,” said the former official who attended the meeting.
The intelligence assessment was “inappropriately discredited as a result of that exchange,” said the ex-official. The episode made clear that “you weren’t able to have an honest conversation about the risk.”
A current DHS official defended the administration’s response to the intelligence assessment, saying immigration policy in the Trump administration does not rely solely on “historical data about terrorism trends,” but rather “is an all-of-the-above approach that looks at every single pathway that we think it is possible for a terrorist to come into the United States.”
A spokeswoman for DHS said, “If we only look at what terrorists have done in the past, we will never be able to prevent future attacks … We cannot let dangerous individuals slip through the cracks and exploit our refugee program, which is why we have implemented security enhancements that would prevent such violent individuals from reaching our shores, while still upholding our humanitarian ideals.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Following the dismissal of the assessment, anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration clashed with civil servants about how to portray the possible threat from refugees in documents drafted for inter-agency discussions, former officials said. In the end, the president’s decision last year to lower the ceiling for refugee admissions to 45,000 did not refer to security threats, but cited staffing shortages at DHS as the rationale. But once the decision was issued, the White House released a public statement that suggested the president’s decision was driven mainly by security concerns and said “some refugees” admitted into the country had posed a threat to public safety.
An Afghan refugee sleeps on the ground while another looks out a window in an abandoned warehouse where they and other migrants took refuge in Belgrade, Serbia, on Feb. 1, 2017.Muhammed Muheisen / AP file
“President Donald J. Trump is taking the responsible approach to promote the safety of the American people,” said the Sept. 29 statement.
Political appointees in the Trump administration then wrote a new report a few months later that seemed to contradict the view of the country’s spy agencies.
In a press release at the time, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the report showed the need for tougher screening of travelers entering the country and served as “a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists.”
But the report is being challenged in court by several former officials and rights groups who say it inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S. Two lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California allege the report improperly excludes incidents committed by domestic terrorists, like white supremacists, and wrongfully includes a significant number of naturalized U.S. citizens and foreigners who committed crimes overseas and were brought to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.
Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand speaks during the opening of the summit on Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking at Department of Justice in Washington, on Feb. 2, 2018.Jose Luis Magana / AP file
Mary McCord, former assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, which prosecutes terrorism charges, said the January 2018 report is “unfortunately both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”
“The result is a report that presents an inaccurate picture of the threat of terrorism in the United States,” McCord said.
When the report was released in January 2018, Trump tweeted that it showed the need to move away from “random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit based” because it showed that “the nearly 3 in 4 individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges are foreign-born.”
But the report only focuses on international terrorism, which is defined as a crime committed on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. The document excludes domestic terrorism committed by groups such as white supremacists or anti-government militias, which are more likely to be supported by those born in the U.S.
Because of the way the terrorism statute is written, those who support domestic organizations like anti-government or white supremacists groups cannot be charged with terrorism, even if the groups they support have committed crimes. Only supporters of foreign terrorist organizations designated by the State Department can be charged with “material support” of terrorism.
Still, Trump has repeatedly stated that the overwhelming majority of terrorists in the United States came from overseas, even before the 2018 report.
In his first speech to Congress in February 2017, Trump said that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our own country.”
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, MSNBC legal analyst and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, took issue with that statement and sued the Justice Department to provide documents that backed up the president’s claim. But the Department was unable to locate any records.
“There are a lot of domestic terrorism cases, and they are generally not committed by people born abroad. To the extent that those cases were excluded — white supremacist violence, anti-abortion terrorism and militia violence — the inquiry is grossly biased,” Wittes wrote on Lawfare.
Wittes said that almost 100, or about a quarter, of the 402 individuals listed as foreign-born terrorists committed their crimes overseas and were brought to the U.S. to face trial.
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller at roundtable discussion on California immigration policy at the White House on May 16.Evan Vucci / AP file
During her time in government as the chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Barbara Strack said her staff worked diligently to thoroughly vet refugees for any possible terrorist links. But she said there was no information she came across that indicated refugees posed a significant security threat.
“I did not see evidence that refugees presented an elevated national security risk compared to other categories of travelers to the United States,” she told NBC News.
The administration must decide by the end of the month how many refugees to allow in the country in the next fiscal year. Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, known for his hawkish stance on immigration, has been pushing for a drastic reduction in the ceiling.
The cap was set at 45,000 last year, but the number of refugees allowed in the country has fallen far below that ceiling, with only about 20,000 resettled in the United States since October 2017. Rights advocates and former officials accuse the White House of intentionally slowing down the bureaucratic process to keep the numbers down, overloading the FBI and other government agencies with duplicative procedures.
*******************************************
This level of total intellectual dishonesty, overt racism, and policy driven solely by a White Nationalist philosophy and political agenda by an Attorney General is unprecedented in my experience at the DOJ.
If you remember, Brand escaped to a “soft landing” in the private sector earlier this year. One of my theories is that she was trying to protect herself and her reputation for a future Federal Judgeship. If and when that happens, I hope that those serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will remember her completely sleazy role in carrying Sessions’s racist-polluted water on this one. Someone with no respect for facts, the law, humanity, or professional expertise definitely does not deserve to be on the Federal Bench!
And for Pete’s sake don’t credit Sessions with any integrity whatsoever in not resigning under pressure from our “Mussolini Wannabe.” He’s not “protecting” the Mueller investigation or anything else worthy in the DOJ. In fact, he has wholly politicized the DOJ and taken it down into the gutter. The reason he “hangs on” is not because he respects the Constitution or rule of law. Clearly, he doesn’t! No, it’s because he wants to do as much damage to civil rights and people of color as he can during his toxic tenure.
Make no mistake, that damage he has done, as has been reported elsewhere, is very substantial. It has set the goals that Dr. Martin Luther King and others fought for and even gave their lives for back by decades. Despicable!
Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.
If you follow the news about immigration, you probably know Stephen Miller. He’s a Senior Policy Advisor to President Trump, and he’s supposedly the nefarious driving force behind many of the Administration’s most vicious anti-immigrant policies.
Last week, Dr. David S. Glosser–Mr. Miller’s uncle and a retired neuropsychologist who volunteers with refugees–penned a powerful article refuting his nephew’s raison d’etre: Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle. The article discusses the immigration history of Mr. Miller’s family, and points out that the policies espoused by Mr. Miller would have prevented his own ancestors from escaping persecution in Europe. Here’s Dr. Glosser’s money shot:
Trump and my nephew both know their immigrant and refugee roots. Yet, they repeat the insults and false accusations of earlier generations against these refugees to make them seem less than human. Trump publicly parades the grieving families of people hurt or killed by migrants, just as the early Nazis dredged up Jewish criminals to frighten and enrage their political base to justify persecution of all Jews. Almost every American family has an immigration story of its own based on flight from war, poverty, famine, persecution, fear or hopelessness. Most of these immigrants became workers, entrepreneurs, scientists and soldiers of America.
Can you guess which one is Stephen Miller?
It’s a powerful piece, in part because of Dr. Glosser’s relationship to Stephen Miller, and in part due to the juxtaposition of these two men. Dr. Glosser speaks from his personal experience dealing with refugees. He sees the story of his parents and grandparents in the stories of modern-day refugees. He has absorbed the lessons of the past, particular with regard to ethnic and religious demonization. Mr. Miller, on the other hand, seems inured to the suffering of his fellow humans and immune to the lessons of history. I have never heard him articulate a fact-based justification for his cruel policies. But he persists in advocating for those policies nevertheless. Mr. Miller’s background and how it influences (or fails to influence) his thinking are important questions, as is the “grim historical irony” of his views.
Here, however, I want to discuss a different question: Is it accurate to call Mr. Miller and the President hypocrites because their policies would have blocked their own ancestors from immigrating to the United States? A second, perhaps more important question, is this: Why does the first question matter?
A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be something that he is not. It’s an epithet often used for politicians who claim to be virtuous and honest, but who, in reality, are the opposite. The word derives from the Greek “hypokrites,” which means “actor,” and there’s a long and rich history of contempt for hypocritical politicians (Dante, for example, relegates the hypocrites to the eight circle of hell, which is pretty close to the bottom).
I don’t think that Mr. Miller or Mr. Trump are hypocrites simply because their immigration policies would have blocked their own ancestors from coming to the U.S. They may be bigots and bullies, whose policies are based more on falsehood than fact, but that is not hypocrisy. Indeed, Mr. Trump has repeatedly articulated his disdain for Muslims, Mexicans, people from “shit-hole countries,” etc., and so the fact that he enacts policies to exclude such people seems perfectly consistent with his world view. He and Mr. Miller may hold ignorant and racist views, but that does not make them hypocrites.
Why does any of this matter?
Aside from the fact that words should be used properly (or as Inigo Montoya might say, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”), it seems wrong to try to limit what people can do by shaming them as hypocrites based on their ancestry. Is the decedent of slave owners a hypocrite if she supports Affirmative Action? Would a Native American be a hypocrite if he became an immigration lawyer? Is the daughter of a candy store owner acting hypocritically if she becomes a dietician? You get my point. We are who we are because of, and in spite of, our progenitors. But I don’t think we should be condemned for the choices we make that are not consistent with the choices they made.
Further, with regards to a complex topic like immigration policy, labels such as “hypocrite” seem inapplicable and designed to shut down–rather than encourage–discussion. Even a person who personally benefited from U.S. refugee policy, for example, has a right to oppose the admission of additional refugees. Economic and political circumstances change, as does the population of refugees seeking admission to our country. Maybe you support admitting some types of refugees (those like you) and oppose admitting others. Such a position is likely based on ignorance of “the other,” but I don’t think it is necessarily hypocritical.
So condemn Mr. Miller for his bigotry and his lies. Call out the irony of his policies, which would have blocked his own ancestors from finding refuge in our country. But don’t call Stephen Miller a hypocrite. Sadly, he is exactly what he purports to be.
*******************************************
I personally think that racist, White Nationalist, and White Supremacist, as well as disingenuous are the best terms to describe Miller. And, it’s no coincidence that he once worked for Jeff Sessions.
Aretha Franklin was an ardent supporter of civil and women’s rights throughout her life. She influenced countless other artists who carry her soulful passion into their music, inspiring millions of people worldwide. Franklin also championed causes like health care access, environmental protection, and disability rights. You can join us in taking action on these issues here.
Aretha Franklin, “The Queen of Soul,” died from advanced pancreatic cancer on Thursday at the age of 76, according to the New York Times.
Acclaimed as the greatest American “singer of postwar popular music,” Franklin influenced countless soul, R&B, and pop artists over the past several decades. Her influence is still clearly felt in contemporary artists like Beyoncé, Jennifer Hudson, and Adele.
Aretha Franklin performs at New York’s Radio City Music Hall, July 6, 1989. Image: Mario Suriani/AP
With her soaring range and empowering messages, Franklin also inspired a generation of activists.
Franklin was a dedicated philanthropist throughout her life and was never far from the pulse of social justice, appearing on stages with both Martin Luther King Jr. and former President Barack Obama.
Here are four ways the Queen of Soul fought for a better world.
1. Women’s Rights
In an era when respect was not universally received in the US, Franklin’s rousing version of “Respect,” first recorded by Otis Redding, was an electrifying call to action. The unflinching demand for respect became a mantra for both the women’s rights and civil rights movements.
Released in the 1970s, the song radically overturned gender conventions by situating a woman as the primary breadwinner in a family and fiercely challenged sexist assumptions.
Franklin’s song “Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves” was another feminist anthem, envisioning a world where women everywhere can break free from the constraints of a sexist society.
“Now this is a song to celebrate,” the lyrics read. “The conscious liberation of the female state! / Mothers, daughters, and their daughters, too. / Woman to woman / We’re singin’ with you. / The inferior sex got a new exterior / We got doctors, lawyers, politicians, too.”
“American history wells up when Aretha sings,” Obama said in 2015. “Nobody embodies more fully the connection between the African-American spiritual, the blues, R&B, rock and roll – the way that hardship and sorrow were transformed into something full of beauty and vitality and hope.”
2. Civil Rights
Franklin’s father was a committed civil rights activist, and she frequently lent her growing fame and stature to the movement.
The soul singer regularly performed at civil rights events and was there to support Martin Luther King Jr. during his rallies. She was eventually awarded the Southern Christian Leadership Award for her dedicated work by King. When King was assassinated in 1968, Franklin performed at his funeral.
When the civil rights leader Angela Davis was arrested in 1970 and falsely branded a “terrorist” by President Richard Nixon, Franklin announced her intention to post the $250,000 bail, one of many times where she financially supported black activists.
The Queen of Soul has also supported charities such as Feeding America, which funds more than 200 foodbanks nationwide, and the Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, which specializes in diabetes research.
Franklin lived with diabetes throughout her life and wanted to make sure other people would have the health care access that they needed.
“I feel wonderful, I’ve got more energy, I’ve changed my diet, going to Whole Foods now, getting the best stuff,” she said after recovering from a hospital stay in 2012 on The View. “Dropped the chitlins, drop the ham hocks, getting some — I won’t say better food, I’ll say other food.”
4. Boosting Charity Events
Throughout her career, Franklin regularly helped causes she cared about to raise more money through fundraising events.
In 2012, she attended a gala for the Rainforest Fund, which seeks to protect human rights in the Amazon Rainforest. The next year she lent her voice to a Christmas album whose proceeds went to the Special Olympics. In 2017, Franklin was a headlining act for The Elton John AIDS Foundation New York Gala, which went on to raise $4.4 million.
“Being the Queen is not all about singing, and being a diva is not all about singing,” she said of her fame. “It has much to do with your service to people. And your social contributions to your community and your civic contributions as well.”
*********************************
The best way to provide “service to people” and to honor Aretha’s memory is to aggressively stand up for the rights of women and minorities and oppose the White Nationalist, racist, misogynist policies of the Trump Administration.
Actually saw Aretha perform in person once at the “old Cleveland Stadium” (a/k/a “The Mistake on The Lake”) following an Indians game during the “Jones Day Phase” of my career!
The president of the United States had just lobbed another racially charged insult — this time calling his former top African American adviser a “dog” — but Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) had no interest in talking about it.
“I’ve got more important things on my mind, so I really don’t have a comment on that,” said the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, chuckling at the question.
Has President Trump ever said anything on race that made Cornyn uncomfortable? “I think the most important thing is to pay attention to what the president does, which I think has been good for the country,” the senator demurred.
What about his constituents back home — are they concerned? “I know you have to ask these questions but I’m not going to talk about that,” Cornyn said, politely ending the brief interview in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. “I just think that’s an endless little wild goose chase and I’m not going there.”
And so it went last week among Republicans: As Trump immersed the nation in a new wave of fraught battles over race, most GOP lawmakers tried to ignore the topic altogether. The studied avoidance is a reflection of the enduring reluctance of Republicans to confront Trump’s often divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, in part because the president remains deeply popular within a party dominated by older white voters.
The Washington Post reached out to all 51 Republican senators and six House Republican leaders asking them to participate in a brief interview about Trump and race. Only three senators agreed to participate: Jeff Flake of Arizona, David Perdue of Georgia and Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only black Republican in the Senate.
Trump has a history of mocking his black critics’ intelligence
President Trump insulted NBA player LeBron James’s intelligence in a tweet Aug. 3. It’s not the first time Trump has taken this approach.(Elyse Samuels /The Washington Post)
Flake, a frequent Trump critic who is retiring, rattled off examples when asked if there were times he felt Trump had been racially insensitive.
“It started long before his campaign, the whole Barack Obama, the birtherism . . . that was abhorrent, I thought,” Flake said in a phone interview. “And then you know, the Mexican rapists . . . on his first official day as a campaign. And then you know, Judge Curiel, the statement that he couldn’t judge because of his heritage. Failure to, you know, condemn in Charlottesville. Just the willingness to go there, all the time. Muslim ban. This kind of divide-and-conquer strategy. It’s just — it’s been one thing after another.”
Six other lawmakers granted impromptu interviews when approached in the Capitol, although most declined to be specific about whether they were uncomfortable with any of Trump’s statements on race. One exception was Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, another Trump critic who is leaving Congress in January.
“It’s a formula that I think they think works for them, as it relates to winning,” Corker said, referring to the use of divisive racial issues by Trump and his advisers. “I think that’s their kind of governing. I think that’s how they think they stay in power, is to divide.”
Several other lawmakers said they did not like some of Trump’s language, especially on race, but did not consider Trump to be racist.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said Trump’s description of former black adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman as a “dog” was “not appropriate, ever.” But he stopped short of pointing to a time when he felt the president had crossed a racial boundary.
“I just think that’s the way he reacts and the way he interacts with people who attack him,” Thune said. “I don’t condone it. But I think it’s probably part built into his — it’s just going to be in his DNA.”
The month of August — which included the first anniversary of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville — has seen Trump unleash a steady tide of racially charged invective, including questioning the intelligence of basketball star LeBron James, attacking Chinese college students and reviving his attacks on anthem protests by black NFL players. At one point last week, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she could not guarantee that no audio recording exists of Trump using the n-word, as Manigault Newman alleges in her book.
Republicans have struggled over issues of race since the Civil Rights era, with periodic efforts to appeal to blacks, Latinos and other minorities. Trump’s critics within the party fear that, in an increasingly diverse nation, the president is reopening wounds many Republicans had sought to heal.
Trump and his allies frequently counter by offering economic data that they say is favorable to minorities, seeking to separate Trump’s harsh rhetoric from his policy agenda.
But some longtime party stalwarts worry about the long-term consequences of the party’s near-silence on race.
Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant and vocal Trump critic, bemoaned “the larger moral cowardice that has overtaken the party.”
“Trump’s shtick is that he’s the grievance candidate,” Murphy said. “He’s focused on the economically squeezed Caucasian voter. . . . He is speaking to that rage. Mexican rapists, clever Chinese traders, African American people as dogs. That’s Trump’s DNA.”
. . . .
Perdue said in an interview that he believes Trump is results-focused and “trying to be all-inclusive,” and that Democrats are the ones using race as a political issue.
“Well, I hope they will,” Perdue said. “I have many friends in the African American community and they’re tired of being treated as pawns.”
But Republicans who believe that Trump has galloped past norms of civil society on race and other issues worry about the costs the party may ultimately pay, both politically and morally.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Not surprising to see modern-day Jim Crows like Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) out there carrying water for the Trump/Sessions brand of 21st Century racism. After all, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that America needs more legal immigration and that family-based immigration is good for America, Perdue is one of the chief sponsors of the CIS-inspired bogus merit-based immigration bill that actually reduces legal immigration in a losing attempt to bar immigrants of color and “Keep America White As Long As Possible.” Donald Trump trying to be “all-inclusive?” How’s that David, by dissing African-Americans, calling them “dogs,” dehumanizing immigrants, slurring Hispanics, taking protections away from transgender kids, taking away security clearances of critics, attacking the free press, attacking the Justice Department, the FBI and the intelligence community, promoting a false narrative about voter fraud, or telling thousands of lies since assuming office? Which one of these is “all inclusive?” The only “inclusive” thing about Donald Trump is that the majority of Americans who aren’t in his overwhelmingly White Guy “core.” are all included in his insults, lies, and disrespect!
I also thought that the final comment about the late George Wallace was telling. Yup, Wallace accomplished some things in Alabama including getting more textbooks. (Remember that Adolf Hitler built great Autobahns too!) But, the screaming crowds of White Folks who supported Wallace on the national stage weren’t excited about textbooks or better roads — they loved the message of racism and White Supremacy. And, that’s exactly how history will remember Wallace and his supporters — not for the textbooks, but for the public defense and advocacy of racism (just like Hitler isn’t remembered for his Autobahns). Which is how Trump, his “base,” and his many enablers (whether enthusiastic, merely willing, or downright cowardly) will also be remembered!
It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true—his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power. Trump inaugurated his campaign by casting himself as the defender of white maidenhood against Mexican “rapists,” only to be later alleged by multiple accusers, and by his own proud words, to be a sexual violator himself. White supremacy has always had a perverse sexual tint. Trump’s rise was shepherded by Steve Bannon, a man who mocks his white male critics as “cucks.” The word, derived from cuckold, is specifically meant to debase by fear and fantasy—the target is so weak that he would submit to the humiliation of having his white wife lie with black men. That the slur cuck casts white men as victims aligns with the dicta of whiteness, which seek to alchemize one’s profligate sins into virtue. So it was with Virginia slaveholders claiming that Britain sought to make slaves of them. So it was with marauding Klansmen organized against alleged rapes and other outrages. So it was with a candidate who called for a foreign power to hack his opponent’s email and who now, as president, is claiming to be the victim of “the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history.”
In Trump, white supremacists see one of their own. Only grudgingly did Trump denounce the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke, one of its former grand wizards—and after the clashes between white supremacists and counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Duke in turn praised Trump’s contentious claim that “both sides” were responsible for the violence.
To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies. The repercussions are striking: Trump is the first president to have served in no public capacity before ascending to his perch. But more telling, Trump is also the first president to have publicly affirmed that his daughter is a “piece of ass.” The mind seizes trying to imagine a black man extolling the virtues of sexual assault on tape (“When you’re a star, they let you do it”), fending off multiple accusations of such assaults, immersed in multiple lawsuits for allegedly fraudulent business dealings, exhorting his followers to violence, and then strolling into the White House. But that is the point of white supremacy—to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.
****************************************
I encourage you to read Coates’s entire totally cogent expose of the Supreme ugliness of Trump, his “team,” and his core supporters. No, you can’t really separate Donald Trump’s policies from his racism.
That’s why America needs regime change at the ballot box. NOW!
Stephen Miller is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle.
If my nephew’s ideas on immigration had been in force a century ago, our family would have been wiped out.
By DAVID S. GLOSSER
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Let me tell you a story about Stephen Miller and chain migration.
It begins at the turn of the 20th century in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl of subsistence farmers in what is now Belarus. Beset by violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army, the patriarch of the shack, Wolf-Leib Glosser, fled a village where his forebears had lived for centuries and took his chances in America.
He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name. Though fluent in Polish, Russian, and Yiddish he understood no English. An elder son, Nathan, soon followed. By street corner peddling and sweat-shop toil Wolf-Leib and Nathan sent enough money home to pay off debts and buy the immediate family’s passage to America in 1906. That group included young Sam Glosser, who with his family settled in the western Pennsylvania city of Johnstown, a booming coal and steel town that was a magnet for other hard-working immigrants. The Glosser family quickly progressed from selling goods from a horse and wagon to owning a haberdashery in Johnstown run by Nathan and Wolf-Leib to a chain of supermarkets and discount department stores run by my grandfather, Sam, and the next generation of Glossers, including my dad, Izzy. It was big enough to be listed on the AMEX stock exchange and employed thousands of people over time. In the span of some 80 years and five decades, this family emerged from poverty in a hostile country to become a prosperous, educated clan of merchants, scholars, professionals, and, most important, American citizens.
What does this classically American tale have to do with Stephen Miller? Well, Izzy Glosser, is his maternal grandfather, and Stephen’s mother, Miriam, is my sister.
I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, who is an educated man and well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country.
I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limitingcitizenship for legal immigrants— been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom. The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America First” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees. Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family would likely have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol. I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.
Like other immigrants, our family’s welcome to the USA was not always a warm one, but we largely had the protection of the law, there was no state sponsored violence against us, no kidnapping of our male children, and we enjoyed good relations with our neighbors. True, Jews were excluded from many occupations, couldn’t buy homes in some towns, couldn’t join certain organizations or attend certain schools or universities, but life was good. As in past generations there were hate mongers who regarded the most recent groups of poor immigrants as scum, rapists, gangsters, drunks and terrorists, but largely the Glosser family was left alone to live our lives and build the American dream. Children were born, synagogues founded, and we thrived. This was the miracle of America.
Acting for so long in the theater of right wing politics, Stephen and Trump may have become numb to the resultant human tragedy and blind to the hypocrisy of their policy decisions. After all, Stephen’s is not the only family with a chain immigration story in the Trump administration. Trump’s grandfather is reported to have been a German migrant on the run from military conscription to a new life in the USA and his mother fled the poverty of rural Scotland for the economic possibilities of New York City. (Trump’s in-laws just became citizens on the strength of his wife’s own citizenship.)
These facts are important not only for their grim historical irony but because vulnerable people are being hurt. They are real people, not the ghoulish caricatures portrayed by Trump. When confronted by the deaths and suffering of thousands our senses are overwhelmed, and the victims become statistics rather than people. I meet these statistics one at a time through my volunteer service as a neuropsychologist for HIAS (formerly the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), the global non-profit agency that protects refugees and helped my family more than 100 years ago. I will share the story of one such man I have met in the hope that my nephew might recognize elements of our shared heritage.
In the early 2000s, Joseph (not his real name) was conscripted at the age of 14 to be a soldier in Eritrea and sent to a remote desert military camp. Officers there discovered a Bible under his pillow which aroused their suspicion that he might belong to a foreign evangelical sect that would claim his loyalty and sap his will to fight. Joseph was actually a member of the state-approved Coptic church but was nonetheless immediately subjected to torture. “They smashed my face into the ground, tied my hands and feet together behind my back, stomped on me, and hung me from a tree by my bonds while they beat me with batons for the others to see.”
Joseph was tortured for 20 consecutive days before being taken to a military prison and crammed into a dark unventilated cell with 36 other men, little food and no proper hygiene. Some died, and in time Joseph was stricken with dysentery. When he was too weak to stand he was taken to a civilian clinic where he was fed by the medical staff. Upon regaining his strength he escaped to a nearby road where a sympathetic driver took him north through the night to a camp in Sudan where he joined other refugees. Joseph was on the first leg of a journey that would cover thousands of miles and almost 10 years.
Before Donald Trump had started his political ascent promulgating the false story that Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, while my nephew, Stephen, was famously recovering from the hardships of his high school cafeteria in Santa Monica, Joseph was a child on his own in Sudan in fear of being deported back to Eritrea to face execution for desertion. He worked any job he could get, saved his money and made his way through Sudan. He endured arrest and extortion in Libya. He returned to Sudan, then kept moving to Dubai, Brazil, and eventually to a southern border crossing into Texas, where he sought asylum. In all of the countries he traveled through during his ordeal, he was vulnerable, exploited and his status was “illegal.” But in the United States he had a chance to acquire the protection of a documented immigrant.
Today, at 30, Joseph lives in Pennsylvania and has a wife and child. He is a smart, warm, humble man of great character who is grateful for every day of his freedom and safety. He bears emotional scars from not seeing his parents or siblings since he was 14. He still trembles, cries and struggles for breath when describing his torture, and he bears physical scars as well. He hopes to become a citizen, return to work and make his contribution to America. His story, though unique in its particulars, is by no means unusual. I have met Central Americans fleeing corrupt governments, violence and criminal extortion; a Yemeni woman unable to return to her war-ravaged home country and fearing sexual mutilation if she goes back to her Saudi husband; and an escaped kidnap-bride from central Asia.
President Trump wants to make us believe that these desperate migrants are an existential threat to the United States; the most powerful nation in world history and a nation made strong by immigrants. Trump and my nephew both know their immigrant and refugee roots. Yet, they repeat the insults and false accusations of earlier generations against these refugees to make them seem less than human. Trump publicly parades the grieving families of people hurt or killed by migrants, just as the early Nazis dredged up Jewish criminals to frighten and enrage their political base to justify persecution of all Jews. Almost every American family has an immigration story of its own based on flight from war, poverty, famine, persecution, fear or hopelessness. These immigrants became the workers, entrepreneurs, scientists and soldiers of America.
Most damning is the administration’s evident intent to make policy that specifically disadvantages people based on their ethnicity, country of origin, and religion. No matter what opinion is held about immigration, any government that specifically enacts law or policy on that basis must be recognized as a threat to all of us. Laws bereft of justice are the gateway to tyranny. Today others may be the target, but tomorrow it might just as easily be you or me. History will be the judge, but in the meanwhile the normalization of these policies is rapidly eroding the collective conscience of America. Immigration reform is a complex issue that will require compassion and wisdom to bring the nation to a just solution, but the politicians who have based their political and professional identity on ethnic demonization and exclusion cannot be trusted to do so. As free Americans, and the descendants of immigrants and refugees, we have the obligation to exercise our conscience by voting for candidates who will stand up for our highest national values and not succumb to our lowest fears.
The attorney general charged that the freedom to practice religion in America has come “under attack” in the nation’s current “cultural climate.”
A “dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom …. It must be confronted … and defeated,” he added.
“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen United States senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma …. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” Sessions added, referring to the Colorado baker who won a religious liberty challenge to LGBTQ anti-discrimination law in the U.S. Supreme Court after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Sessions called freedom of religion “indeed our first freedom being the first listed right in the First Amendment” and said that the Trump administration is “actively seeking to accommodate people of faith.”
Sessions touted his department’s prosecution of attacks on religion, among them court actions shielding about 90 plaintiffs from Obama-era requirements that employer health insurance cover contraception, an amicus brief “we were proud to file” on behalf of Phillips, and indictments in an arson attack and threats directed at two mosques.
Twitter exploded, with critics charging that the Religious Liberty Task Force was a front to protect religious zealots attacking LGBTQ rights and an unconstitutional push to marry church and state on the altar of Christianity.
******************************
Read the entire Article, including the “Twitter Storm” at the link. Some pretty funny but “right on” reactions!
Yet another taxpayer-financed scam by our corrupt and bigoted Attorney General. Obviously this is a thinly disguised effort to use Government funding and power to promote and establish far right-wing Christian views and biases.
Don’t expect any help for Muslims targeted for hate crimes, irrationally excluded under the “Travel Ban,” or targeted by anti-Muslim pronouncements of Administration officials and GOP right-wing politicos. Don’t expect any assistance or protection for those religious groups actually engaged in “God’s work on earth” and carrying out Christ’s true humanitarian, forgiving teachings by providing help to migrants and resisting inhumane and illegal Administration policies. Don’t expect any help for Bhuddists, atheists, deists, or any other non-right-wing Christian groups trying to vindicate their First Amendment rights. Don’t expect any help for members of the LGBTQ community whose rights are being trampled upon by so-called Christians who promote intolerance, discrimination, humiliation, de-humanization, and hate in the name of false “religious expression.”
Interestingly, Sessions himself has been charged within the Methodist Church (of which my wife and I are members) with violation of teachings of Christ and the Church’s own rules and values.
He’s a total scofflaw and a fraud, seeking to impose his corrupt, inhumane, intolerant views on the rest of us by abusing his Government position and squandering taxpayer funds on an anti-Constitutional attempt to establish particular “so-called Christian views” as the law of the land.
Retired U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner writes in HuffPost:
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s final writing as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, his concurrence in the travel ban case, was a cri de coeur. It simply, even pathetically, lamented the court’s limited role in controlling a lawless executive.
Throwing up his hands, he wrote that the acts of government officials often are not subject to judicial scrutiny, while adding that this “does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it protects. The oath is not restricted to the actions that the Judiciary can correct.”
Wrong message, Mr. Justice.
Even though the travel ban the court upheld is not related to the asylum crisis — the travel prohibition is about immigrants coming here for all sorts of reasons, not asylum seekers fleeing violence in their country — to President Donald Trump, it does not matter. The high court’s decision is perceived as a vindication of all of his immigration policies, no matter how lawless, cruel and dysfunctional. And with Kennedy’s concurrence, it risks signaling that the judiciary will abdicate its own obligations to uphold our country’s laws and ideals.
Take “zero tolerance.” When asylum-seekers so much as step across the border, they are violating the law, according to this administration, even if they immediately present claims to an immigration official. The rule of law, the president insists, requires the prosecution of all crimes, no matter how trivial. This from the same man who pardoned former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio after he was found guilty of flouting a court order to stop racial profiling.
Then there is the even more absurd claim that family separation deters asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. Asylum-seekers will not be deterred by Trump’s cruelty; they have already decided to risk a dangerous trek from Central America to the U.S. because they believe their families will be killed if they stay. In fact, the number of asylum requests has increased notwithstanding Trump’s policies; its driving force is violence in asylum-seekers’ home countries, not U.S. immigration policy.
Nor are these asylum-seekers miscreants intent on defrauding the U.S. or committing crimes. This year, fewer than 1 percent of those apprehended have presented claims found to be false. Studies show that in general, undocumented immigrants — of whom asylum-seekers are a part — commit fewer crimes than those born in this country.
Worse, Trump now wants to deport asylum-seekers without any review. We don’t need more judges, he says, just more border cops. Where is the rule of law here?
HANDOUT . / REUTERS
A view of inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection detention facility in Rio Grande City, Texas, last month.
Subscribe to The Morning Email.
Wake up to the day’s most important news.
The Constitution’s due process requirement applies to anyone physically in the U.S., whether they have arrived legally or not. Likewise, international law requires us to review whether asylum-seekers’ claims of violence are credible, and if they qualify, let them in. And obviously, this government should not threaten to take children from their parents unless the families agree to voluntary deportation. That’s not just the absence of due process; it’s the presence of extortion.
If Kennedy signaled his belief that the court has very limited power to control an errant president, his putative replacement, federal Circuit Coury Judge Brett Kavanaugh, may well be worse. He does not just lament court’s limited power to control a president, he embraces it.
Kavanaugh has a particularly robust view of presidential power in certain areas — significantly, national security or immigration. In Klayman v. Obama, the D.C. Circuit ruled against a challenge to the National Security Agency’s metadata collection program on technical grounds, in a per curiam decision ― meaning an opinion of the entire court and not any individual judge. Kavanaugh, however, felt the need to file a concurring opinion.
Rather than simply signing on the decision, he went out of his way to make the breadth of the president’s national security power clear: Even if the collection program were the functional equivalent of a search, the government did not need to seek a warrant from a judge because the president said the program was necessary to combat terrorism and that need outweighed any impact on privacy.
Echoing Kennedy’s lament in the travel ban case, Kavanaugh added that while the chief executive and Congress may want to limit the program, until they do the judiciary was literally without the power to control it. Not only was the door to a constitutional challenge was firmly shut; he wanted to make certain that everyone knew it.
But there are judges who are not simply wringing their hands about the limits of judicial review over immigration issues, like Kennedy did, or who are bent on deferring to the president whenever he intones a national security rationale, as Kavanaugh might well do. They are working each day to prevent this president from running roughshod over the Constitution ― not just in the executive orders that he promulgates but in the way his orders and policies are implemented on the ground, in the day-to-day encounters on our borders.
A federal judge in California, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a nationwide injunction temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating children from their parents at the border. Another in D.C. blocked the systematic detention of migrants who show credible evidence that they were fleeing persecution in their home countries, halting a practice that is an obvious and unlawful attempt to deter them and others from seeking refuge here.
There will surely be others, because these judges ― like the president ― also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. But for them, unlike the president, it is not an empty promise.
Nancy Gertner served as a Massachusetts United States District Court judge from 1994 to 2011, when she retired to teach at Harvard Law School. Her first memoir, In Defense of Women, was published in 2011, and a judicial memoir, Incomplete Sentences, will be published in 2019.
***************************************
Almost everything that Trump and Sessions have said about asylum seekers and border policy is absurd — clearly refuted by the facts and by past failures.
Lies, racism, xenophobia, absurd positions, claims that are demonstrably false, just plain stupidity, fraud, waste, abuse, it’s all in a day’s work for Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and the other White Nationalists firmly committed to the downfall of American democracy.
And, as Judge Gertner points out, they are aided and abetted by a spineless “go along to get along” Supreme Court majority unwilling to uphold their oaths of office and defend the Constitution and our country against the outrageously unconstitutional, cruel, unjustified, and immoral actions of the Trump Administration.
Can the lower Article IIIs stem the tide long enough for us to get “regime change” at the ballot box and save America? The answer is a resounding “maybe.”
Better get out the vote in November to throw the White Nationalists/Putinists and their fellow travelers out of office. Otherwise, it might be too late for the world’s most successful democracy.
MAJORITY: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.
CONCURRING OPINIONS: KENNEDY, J., and THOMAS, J., filed concurring opinions.
DISSENTING OPINIONS: BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
COURT SYLLABUS:
In September 2017, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, seek- ing to improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the United States by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the infor- mation needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present a security threat. The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. Foreign states were selected for inclusion based on a re- view undertaken pursuant to one of the President’s earlier Executive Orders. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Securi- ty (DHS), in consultation with the State Department and intelligence agencies, developed an information and risk assessment “baseline.” DHS then collected and evaluated data for all foreign governments, identifying those having deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns, as well as other countries “at risk” of failing to meet the baseline. After a 50-day period during which the State Department made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient. She recommended entry restrictions for certain nationals from all of those countries but Iraq, which had a close cooperative re- lationship with the U. S. She also recommended including Somalia, which met the information-sharing component of the baseline stand- ards but had other special risk factors, such as a significant terrorist presence. After consulting with multiple Cabinet members, the Pres- ident adopted the recommendations and issued the Proclamation.
2
TRUMP v. HAWAII Syllabus
Invoking his authority under 8 U. S. C. §§1182(f) and 1185(a), he de- termined that certain restrictions were necessary to “prevent the en- try of those foreign nationals about whom the United States Gov- ernment lacks sufficient information” and “elicit improved identity- management and information-sharing protocols and practices from foreign governments.” The Proclamation imposes a range of entry re- strictions that vary based on the “distinct circumstances” in each of the eight countries. It exempts lawful permanent residents and pro- vides case-by-case waivers under certain circumstances. It also di- rects DHS to assess on a continuing basis whether the restrictions should be modified or continued, and to report to the President every 180 days. At the completion of the first such review period, the Pres- ident determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.
Plaintiffs—the State of Hawaii, three individuals with foreign rela- tives affected by the entry suspension, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii—argue that the Proclamation violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforce- ment of the restrictions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Proclamation contravened two provisions of the INA: §1182(f), which authorizes the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and §1152(a)(1)(A), which provides that “no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” The court did not reach the Establishment Clause claim.
Held:
1. This Court assumes without deciding that plaintiffs’ statutory
claims are reviewable, notwithstanding consular nonreviewability or any other statutory nonreviewability issue. See Sale v. Haitian Cen- ters Council, Inc., 509 U. S. 155. Pp. 8–9.
2. The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion grant- ed to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the Unit- ed States. Pp. 9–24.
(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well with- in this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered al-
Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 3
Syllabus
iens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.
Even assuming that some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s findings is appropriate, but see Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600, plaintiffs’ attacks on the sufficiency of the findings cannot be sustained. The 12-page Proclamation is more detailed than any prior order issued under §1182(f). And such a searching in- quiry is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President in this sphere. See, e.g., Sale, 509 U. S., at 187–188.
The Proclamation comports with the remaining textual limits in §1182(f). While the word “suspend” often connotes a temporary de- ferral, the President is not required to prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restriction. Like its predecessors, the Procla- mation makes clear that its “conditional restrictions” will remain in force only so long as necessary to “address” the identified “inadequa- cies and risks” within the covered nations. Finally, the Proclamation properly identifies a “class of aliens” whose entry is suspended, and the word “class” comfortably encompasses a group of people linked by nationality. Pp. 10–15.
(b) Plaintiffs have not identified any conflict between the Proc- lamation and the immigration scheme reflected in the INA that would implicitly bar the President from addressing deficiencies in the Nation’s vetting system. The existing grounds of inadmissibility and the narrow Visa Waiver Program do not address the failure of certain high-risk countries to provide a minimum baseline of reliable infor- mation. Further, neither the legislative history of §1182(f) nor his- torical practice justifies departing from the clear text of the statute. Pp. 15–20.
(c) Plaintiffs’ argument that the President’s entry suspension vio- lates §1152(a)(1)(A) ignores the basic distinction between admissibil- ity determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once §1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility, §1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on national- ity and other traits. Had Congress intended in §1152(a)(1)(A) to con- strain the President’s power to determine who may enter the country,
4
TRUMP v. HAWAII Syllabus
it could have chosen language directed to that end. Common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s delegated authority under §1182(f). Presidents have re- peatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality. And on plaintiffs’ reading, the President would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic, or even if the United States were on the brink of war. Pp. 20–24.
3. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Proclamation violates the Establish- ment Clause. Pp. 24–38.
(a) The individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to chal- lenge the exclusion of their relatives under the Establishment Clause. A person’s interest in being united with his relatives is suffi- ciently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III injury in fact. Cf., e.g., Kerry v. Din, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 24–26.
(b) Plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclamation was religious animus and that the President’s stated concerns about vetting protocols and national security were but pretexts for discrim- inating against Muslims. At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the cam- paign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the President’s statements, but the signifi- cance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neu- tral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive re- sponsibility. In doing so, the Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself. Pp. 26–29.
(c) The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “funda- mental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792. Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a cir- cumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly bur- dens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen. That review is lim- ited to whether the Executive gives a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 769, but the Court need not define the precise contours of that narrow in- quiry in this case. For today’s purposes, the Court assumes that it may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of apply- ing rational basis review, i.e., whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence may be considered, but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably
Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 5
Syllabus
be understood to result from a justification independent of unconsti- tutional grounds. Pp. 30–32.
(d) On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny, a common thread has been that the laws at issue were “divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 635. The Proclama- tion does not fit that pattern. It is expressly premised on legitimate purposes and says nothing about religion. The entry restrictions on Muslim-majority nations are limited to countries that were previous- ly designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. Moreover, the Proclamation reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple Cabinet officials and their agencies. Plaintiffs challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom, but the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Pro- ject, 561 U. S. 1, 33–34.
Three additional features of the entry policy support the Govern- ment’s claim of a legitimate national security interest. First, since the President introduced entry restrictions in January 2017, three Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Sudan, and Chad—have been re- moved from the list. Second, for those countries still subject to entry restrictions, the Proclamation includes numerous exceptions for vari- ous categories of foreign nationals. Finally, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants. Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. Pp. 33–38.
878 F. 3d 662, reversed and remanded.
KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE BRYER’S DISSENT:
And, perhaps most importantly, if the Government is not applying the Proclamation’s exemption and waiver system, the claim that the Proclamation is a “Muslim ban,” rather than a “security-based” ban, becomes much stronger. How could the Government successfully claim that the Proclamation rests on security needs if it is ex- cluding Muslims who satisfy the Proclamation’s own terms? At the same time, denying visas to Muslims who meet the Proclamation’s own security terms would support the view that the Government excludes them for reasons based upon their religion.
Unfortunately there is evidence that supports the sec-
4 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting
ond possibility, i.e., that the Government is not applying the Proclamation as written. The Proclamation provides that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security “shall coordinate to adopt guidance” for consular officers to follow when deciding whether to grant a waiver. §3(c)(ii). Yet, to my knowledge, no guidance has issued. The only potentially relevant document I have found consists of a set of State Department answers to certain Frequently Asked Questions, but this document simply restates the Proclamation in plain language for visa appli- cants. It does not provide guidance for consular officers as to how they are to exercise their discretion. See Dept. of State, FAQs on the Presidential Proclamation, https:// travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information- resources/presidential-proclamation-archive/2017-12-04- Presidential-Proclamation.html (all Internet materials as last visited June 25, 2018).
An examination of publicly available statistics also provides cause for concern. The State Department reported that during the Proclamation’s first month, two waivers were approved out of 6,555 eligible applicants. Letter from M. Waters, Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs, to Sen. Van Hollen (Feb. 22, 2018). In its reply brief, the Government claims that number increased from 2 to 430 during the first four months of implementation. Reply Brief 17. That number, 430, however, when compared with the number of pre-Proclamation visitors, accounts for a miniscule percentage of those likely eligible for visas, in such categories as persons requiring medical treatment, academic visitors, students, family members, and others belonging to groups that, when considered as a group (rather than case by case), would not seem to pose security threats.
Amici have suggested that there are numerous appli- cants who could meet the waiver criteria. For instance, the Proclamation anticipates waivers for those with “sig-
Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 5
BREYER, J., dissenting
nificant business or professional obligations” in the United States, §3(c)(iv)(C), and amici identify many scholars who would seem to qualify. Brief for Colleges and Universities as Amici Curiae 25–27; Brief for American Council on Education et al. as Amici Curiae 20 (identifying more than 2,100 scholars from covered countries); see also Brief for Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, Inc., asAmicus Curiae 14–15 (identifying technology and business leaders from covered countries). The Proclamation also anticipates waivers for those with a “close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent)” in the United States, §3(c)(iv)(D), and amici identify many such individuals affected by the Proclamation. Brief for Labor Organiza- tions as Amici Curiae 15–18 (identifying children and other relatives of U. S. citizens). The Pars Equality Cen- ter identified 1,000 individuals—including parents and children of U. S. citizens—who sought and were denied entry under the Proclamation, hundreds of whom seem to meet the waiver criteria. See Brief for Pars Equality Center et al. as Amici Curiae 12–28.
Other data suggest the same. The Proclamation does not apply to asylum seekers or refugees. §§3(b)(vi), 6(e). Yet few refugees have been admitted since the Proclama- tion took effect. While more than 15,000 Syrian refugees arrived in the United States in 2016, only 13 have arrived since January 2018. Dept. of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Interactive Reporting, Refugee Processing Center, http://ireports.wrapsnet.org. Similarly few refugees have been admitted since January from Iran (3), Libya (1), Yemen (0), and Somalia (122). Ibid.
The Proclamation also exempts individuals applying for several types of nonimmigrant visas: lawful permanent residents, parolees, those with certain travel documents, dual nationals of noncovered countries, and representa- tives of governments or international organizations. §§3(b)(i)–(v). It places no restrictions on the vast majority
6 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting
of student and exchange visitors, covering only those from Syria, which provided 8 percent of student and exchange visitors from the five countries in 2016. §§2(b)–(h); see Dept. of State, Report of the Visa Office 2016, Table XVII Nonimmigrant Visas Issued Fiscal Year 2016 (Visa Report 2016 Table XVII). Visitors from Somalia are eligible for any type of nonimmigrant visa, subject to “additional scrutiny.” §2(h)(ii). If nonimmigrant visa applications under the Proclamation resemble those in 2016, 16 per- cent of visa applicants would be eligible for exemptions. See Visa Report 2016 Table XVII.
In practice, however, only 258 student visas were issued to applicants from Iran (189), Libya (29), Yemen (40), and Somalia (0) in the first three months of 2018. See Dept. of State, Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances by Nationality, Jan., Feb., and Mar. 2018. This is less than a quarter of the volume needed to be on track for 2016 student visa levels. And only 40 nonimmigrant visas have been issued to Somali nationals, a decrease of 65 percent from 2016.Ibid.; see Visa Report 2016 Table XVII. While this is but a piece of the picture, it does not provide grounds for confidence.
Anecdotal evidence further heightens these concerns. For example, one amicus identified a child with cerebral palsy in Yemen. The war had prevented her from receiv- ing her medication, she could no longer move or speak, and her doctors said she would not survive in Yemen. Her visa application was denied. Her family received a form with a check mark in the box unambiguously confirming that “‘a waiver will not be granted in your case.’” Letter from L. Blatt to S. Harris, Clerk of Court (May 1, 2018). But after the child’s case was highlighted in an amicusbrief before this Court, the family received an update from the consular officer who had initially denied the waiver. It turns out, according to the officer, that she had all along determined that the waiver criteria were met. But, the
Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 7
BREYER, J., dissenting
officer explained, she could not relay that information at the time because the waiver required review from a super- visor, who had since approved it. The officer said that the family’s case was now in administrative processing and that she was attaching a “‘revised refusal letter indicating the approval of the waiver.’” Ibid. The new form did not actually approve the waiver (in fact, the form contains no box saying “granted”). But a different box was now checked, reading: “‘The consular officer is reviewing your eligibility for a waiver under the Proclamation. . . . This can be a lengthy process, and until the consular officer can make an individualized determination of [the relevant] factors, your visa application will remain refused under Section 212(f) [of the Proclamation].’” Ibid. One is left to wonder why this second box, indicating continuing review, had not been checked at the outset if in fact the child’s case had remained under consideration all along. Though this is but one incident and the child was admitted after considerable international attention in this case, it pro- vides yet more reason to believe that waivers are not being processed in an ordinary way.
Finally, in a pending case in the Eastern District of New York, a consular official has filed a sworn affidavit assert- ing that he and other officials do not, in fact, have discre- tion to grant waivers. According to the affidavit, consular officers “were not allowed to exercise that discretion” and “the waiver [process] is merely ‘window dressing.’” See Decl. of Christopher Richardson, Alharbi v. Miller, No. 1:18-cv-2435 (June 1, 2018), pp. 3–4. Another report similarly indicates that the U. S. Embassy in Djibouti, which processes visa applications for citizens of Yemen, received instructions to grant waivers “only in rare cases of imminent danger,” with one consular officer reportedly telling an applicant that “‘[e]ven for infants, we would need to see some evidence of a congenital heart defect or another medical issue of that degree of difficulty
8 TRUMP v. HAWAII BREYER, J., dissenting
that…would likely lead to the child’s developmental harm or death.’” Center for Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, Window Dressing the Muslim Ban: Reports of Waivers and Mass Denials from Yemeni-American Families Stuck in Limbo 18 (2018).
Declarations, anecdotal evidence, facts, and numbers taken from amicus briefs are not judicial factfindings. The Government has not had an opportunity to respond, and a court has not had an opportunity to decide. But, given the importance of the decision in this case, the need for assur- ance that the Proclamation does not rest upon a “Muslim ban,” and the assistance in deciding the issue that an- swers to the “exemption and waiver” questions may pro- vide, I would send this case back to the District Court for further proceedings. And, I would leave the injunction in effect while the matter is litigated. Regardless, the Court’s decision today leaves the District Court free to explore these issues on remand.
If this Court must decide the question without this further litigation, I would, on balance, find the evidence of antireligious bias, including statements on a website taken down only after the President issued the two execu- tive orders preceding the Proclamation, along with the other statements also set forth in JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s opinion, a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside. And for these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S DISSENT:
The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neu trality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Mus lims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security con cerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presi dential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of dis crimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Estab lishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Procla mation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.
. . .
In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind. See, e.g.,Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 50 U. S. C. App. §4211 et seq.(setting forth remedies to individuals affected by the executive order at issue in Korematsu); Non-Detention Act of 1971, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a) (forbidding the imprisonment or detention by the United States of any citizen absent an Act of Congress). Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citingKorematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laud able and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discrimi natory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.
Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to ac count when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.
************************************
Quick Takes:
Yes, I think it’s as bad as it looks and sounds at first glance!
Anybody who thought that the Supremes would stand up for the Constitution against bias-based Executive overreaching should be disabused of that wishful thinking by this decision.
The majority showed little or no interest in holding Trump within Constitutional norms in the area of immigration.
Seems like the Supremes are inviting a bogus “Asylum Ban” as Trump’s next move, and signaling that they won’t do anything no matter how bad his abuses of the law, the Constitution, or international law might be.
Things are likely to get ugly really fast. And, the Supremes are saying that the last and only hope for getting our country and our Constitution back from the restrictionist regime is at the ballot box.
To make that result unlikely, however, they also turned their backs this week on clear racial and political gerrymandering, thus seeking to guarantee White minority control of all branches of Government for the foreseeable future.
The attitude of President Trump toward federal law enforcement is, to put it mildly, mixed. The FBI refused to bend to his will. So the special counsel team is composed of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The agency’s reputation “is in Tatters — worst in History!”
But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has passed the loyalty test. ICE’s enforcement surge “is merely the keeping of my campaign promise,” the president tweeted. Referring to ICE acting director Thomas Homan, Trump said, “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television. . . . ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean.’ I said, ‘That’s what I’m looking for!’ ”
This is territory more familiar in political systems of personal rule. The agency that defies the ruler must be discredited. The agency that does his bidding is viewed as a kind of Praetorian Guard.
Most of the professionals working in ICE would surely deny this characterization, pointing to an important legal role independent from any individual president. But they need to understand that their work is now being conflated with Trump’s nativism.
ICE’s 40 percent increase in arrests within the United States after Trump took office is now closely associated with the president’s political priorities. His sweeping executive orders on immigration broadened the focus of enforcement beyond serious threats to public order. Arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions have spiked. Routine “check-ins” with ICE officials can end with handcuffs and deportation. “Sanctuary cities” — a recurring presidential political obsession — are being targeted with additional personnel. Hundreds of children have been removed from parents seeking asylum and detained separately — compounding their terrible ordeal of persecution and flight. ICE recently announced a new policy that makes it easier to detain pregnant women. Asylum seekers have often been denied “humanitarian parole” while their cases are decided, effectively jailing them without due process.
Officials of the agency insist that their nonpolitical mandate hasn’t changed. But Homan has praised the Trump administration for taking “the handcuffs off law enforcement.” Whatever their intention, ICE agents are being used by the president to send a message of callousness. And they are tying themselves to Trump’s political fortunes in the process.
The job performed by ICE is essential to American security, and not easy. Agents must prevent some truly dangerous people from entering and staying in the country — gang members, drug dealers and terrorists. But it is also their job to deal with asylum seekers — men, women and children fleeing from gangs, targeted for death by drug cartels and oppressed by terrorist states. Some of the worst people in the world, and some of the most sympathetic people in the world, are processed by immigration officials. It takes care and discernment to make this distinction.
ICE is not an agency famous for its care and discernment. In releasing an immigration activist detained by ICE early this year, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest said, “It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust. . . . We are not that country.”
Accusations of abuse in ICE custody are numerous and serious, and they preexisted the Trump era. An investigation by ProPublica and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported cases of racial profiling, fabricated evidence and warrantless searches — all given little scrutiny by overwhelmed immigration courts. During the past few years, there have been hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse, racial slurs, abusive strip searches and verbal harassment in ICE jails, prisons and detention centers. For an institution that claims “zero tolerance” for such practices, it seems to get a lot of serious complaints. One asylum seeker, Gretta Soto Moreno, has called the facilities worse than normal prisons because ICE “feels like it can treat immigrants any kind of way.”
This is the bitter fruit of dehumanization — in a facility, in a system, in a country. It is unclear whether Trump would even regard such a reputation as undesirable. He has effectively given permission for bullying.
This is an issue ripe for more rigorous congressional oversight — even an independent commission to investigate charges of physical and sexual abuse in the ICE system. But this would require a critical mass of elected Republicans to give a damn about the rights and dignity of migrants. It is a distant dream.
*************************************
Dehumanization of migrants, who are among the most human of all among us, is certainly one of the most insidious aspects of the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen,/Homan regime. When we allow individuals like these who have both forgotten their proper roles in a democratic republic and arrogantly checked their humanity at the door, we essentially dehumanize ourselves.
Not surprisingly, migrants grow in moral stature as we shrink, individually and collectively. And the restrictionist (occasionally, as in the case of folks like Rep Steve King (R-IA) “neo-Nazi”) wing of the GOP is certainly a prime enabler of this reprehensible conduct. As even some GOP commentators have noted, there is a disturbing “empathy and humanity gap” evident when GOP politicos speak in dismissive and derogatory terms about migrants.
Only time will tell how soon we will be able to remove these unworthy public officials from the positions they now hold and replace them with responsible public servants who treat others with dignity, respect, humanity, and reasonableness. But, the speed and decisiveness with which we act will say much about America’s future prospects as a nation.
The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.
But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”
The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.
The first version of the ban was issued just a week after Trump took office, and lower courts have found that it and each reformulated version since exceeded the authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice — animus, as courts like to say — toward Muslims.
The state of Hawaii, which is leading the challenge of the ban, told the Supreme Court:
“For over a year, the president campaigned on the pledge, never retracted, that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States.
“And upon taking office, the president issued and reissued, and reissued again, a sweeping and unilateral order that purports to bar over 150 million aliens — the vast majority of them Muslim — from entering the United States.”
Hawaii’s brief, by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal, cites not only Trump’s campaign comments, but also his actions as president, including the time he retweeted “three anti-Muslim propaganda videos” from a widely condemned far-right British organization.
This led to a response by the solicitor general of the United States to the justices of the Supreme Court that could have been written only in this era, about this chief executive:
“The president’s retweets do not address the meaning of the proclamation at all.”
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco urged the court not to get distracted by the president’s bluster — he has said nice things about Muslims, too, the brief states — and to keep its examination on the law.
*************************
Read Barnes’s full article at the link.
Trump has never shown any actual justification for the “bogus ban.” But, the standard of “facially bona fide and legitimate” is very permissive. As usual, from a legal standpoint, Trump would have done better to have kept his big mouth shut!
A panel of three judges, each appointed by a Republican president to the federal appeals court in Chicago, ruled unanimously on Thursday against President Trump’s effort to withhold money from “sanctuary cities.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction that blocks the Justice Department from using “the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement.”
Trump’s latest courtroom defeat offers yet another civics lesson about checks and balances for the first president in American history who lacks any prior governing or military experience. Unlike congressional Republicans who have by and large kowtowed and capitulated to Trumpism, despite private uneasiness and grumbling in many cases, Republican-appointed judges are free not to care about the wrath of the president or blowback from his loyalists. This gives them the breathing room to worry more about the rule of law than partisanship. That was the point of an independent judiciary and giving lifetime appointments. It’s how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Judge Ilana Rovner, who was appointed to a district judgeship by Ronald Reagan and elevated to the circuit by George H.W. Bush, offers a remarkable rebuke of the Trump administration in a 35-page opinion that can be read as a tutorial on the separation of powers. She even throws around words like “tyranny” that you don’t often see in opinions of this nature:
“Our role in this case is not to assess the optimal immigration policies for our country,” she writes. “Rather, the issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government …
“The founders of our country well understood that the concentration of power threatens individual liberty and established a bulwark against such tyranny by creating a separation of powers among the branches of government. If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken …
“Congress repeatedly refused to approve of measures that would tie funding to state and local immigration policies. Nor … did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose such conditions. It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power. We are a country that jealously guards the separation of powers, and we must be ever‐vigilant in that endeavor.”
Rovner, 79, and her parents fled Latvia, and the Nazis, when she was an infant. She lost family members in the Holocaust. She often says that she decided to become a lawyer to stop anything like that genocide from happening again. Displayed in her chambers are the green card she was issued when she arrived in America in 1939 and her mother’s passport. “These are the things that saved my life,” she told the Chicago Tribune for a 2011 profile.
Her scathing opinion was joined by Judge William Bauer, who was appointed by Gerald Ford. Judge Daniel Manion, who Reagan put on the bench, wrote a concurrence saying he would have narrowed the injunction to protect only Chicago, rather than keeping it national.
The injunction was ordered last September by District Judge Harry Leinenweber, who was also appointed by Reagan.
2:02
Sessions in 2017: ‘Sanctuary’ cities lead to crime
Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized Chicago’s sanctuary city policy while speaking in Miami on Aug. 16, 2017.(Reuters)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has tried to require that cities give federal immigration agents access to undocumented immigrants who are in their jails in order to get certain public safety grants. This effort has already been blocked in separate lawsuits by federal judges in California and Pennsylvania. The judge who blocked the administration from holding back money from Philadelphia, Michael Baylson, was appointed by George W. Bush and wrote an unusually long 128-page ruling against the administration in November.
The 7th Circuit opinion yesterday complains that the term sanctuary cities “is commonly misunderstood” and “a red herring.” Contrary to popular understanding, the judges explain, “the federal government can and does freely operate in ‘sanctuary’ localities.”
— The Justice Department quickly criticized the ruling, saying the administration continues to believe it has the power to attach strings to money appropriated by Congress and complaining that courts keep issuing broad injunctions that thwart Trump. “Many in the legal community have expressed concern that the use of nationwide injunctions is inconsistent with the separation of powers, and that their increased use creates a dangerous precedent,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to carry out the department’s commitment to the rule of law, protecting public safety, and keeping criminal aliens off the streets to further perpetrate crimes.”
— Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel held an afternoon news conference to blast Trump as petty for refusing to hand over the grant money while the case continues to play out in the courts. “The Trump Justice Department could actually say ‘OK, we’re going to go forward with these grants, and let’s fight the case out in court,’” said the Democrat, who was Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff. “But they refuse to give municipalities like Chicago and other cities around the country the resources to fight crime and gun violence, because they think fighting us on the principle of being a sanctuary, welcoming city, is more important than helping the police departments get the technology they need to do a better job in public safety.”
1:00
Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons
The Supreme Court ruled on April 17 that an immigration statute requiring the deportation of noncitizens who commit felonies is unlawfully vague.(Reuters)
— This is just the latest legal setback for Trump when it comes to his far-reaching immigration agenda.
On Tuesday, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court’s four liberal members to strike down part of a federal law used to deport noncitizens who commit felonies on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague. The 5-to-4 decision could limit the government’s ability to deport people with criminal records, a Trump priority.
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power,” Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Today’s vague laws … can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same — by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.”
“For the conservative Gorsuch to align with the liberals might seem a surprise, but his vote was in keeping with questions he asked during oral argument in October. And he was in part following in the footsteps of the justice he replaced, the late Antonin Scalia,” explains Supreme Court beat reporter Robert Barnes. “In 2015, Scalia wrote the court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which struck down a similarly vague description of violent felony in the Armed Career Criminal Act.”
— Trump is incensed about Gorsuch’s vote. Administration officials say the president has been complaining to them that the justice “had proved too liberal in recent cases,” Robert Costa, Josh Dawsey and Rosalind S. Helderman report. “Associates … said it renewed his doubts that Gorsuch would be a reliable conservative. One top Trump adviser played down the comments as unhappiness with Gorsuch’s decision rather than with Gorsuch broadly.”
— In February, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s request to immediately review the lower court decisions that prevent him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Getting cert. would have only taken four votes, which means at least one GOP appointee opposed the administration’s request. The litigation over the fate of the “dreamers” will now follow the normal process, winding through the circuit courts.
1:35
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end “sanctuary cities” while campaigning for the White House. Washington, D.C., is one such city.(Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)
— The courts have proved vexing for Trump since his first days in office. District Judge James Robart in Washington state, who was nominated by George W. Bush in 2004, halted the president’s first travel ban, which blocked citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump tweeted angrily.
But it wasn’t. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit, which included another Bush 43 nominee, unanimously agreed. The administration withdrew the ban and issued another watered-down version.
— Barack Obama also lost cases in the courts, including on immigration. But he typically failed before conservative judges who had been appointed by Republicans more than judges appointed by his Democratic predecessors. The Harvard-educated former constitutional law professor had a much better record. To be sure, most judges appointed by Republicans are still siding with the administration most of the time. And Trump is remaking the judicial branch by appointing nominees who share his worldview.
*********************************
We should remember that it actually was GOP appointees like Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit and Chief Judge John Walker of the 2nd Circuit (a cousin of President George W. Bush) who led the “Charge of Judicial Outrage” that eventually shut down the “assembly line removal system” set up by Ashcroft following his infamous “BIA Purge.”
Women from Syria walk with their children in a refugee camp in Cyprus in September.Petros Karadjias/AP
Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.
The United Nations estimates that there are 5.5 million Syrian refugees. In the past three months, the United States has allowed two of them to enter the country—down from about 3,600 in the last threemonths of the Obama administration.
After kicking off his presidency by temporarily banning refugees, Donald Trump lifted the ban in late October. But at the same time, he increased scrutiny of refugees from 11 countries, requiring that they be admitted only if doing so fulfills “critical foreign policy interests.” Refugee advocates said that the language would effectivelyban refugees from a group of mostly Muslim-majority nations. Data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center reviewed by Mother Jones confirms their prediction.
The United States has taken in 44 refugees from the targeted countries since Trump issued his executive order, compared to about 12,000 during the same period last year. The countries are Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
The heightened vetting of people from those countries has driven down the totalnumber of Muslim refugees coming to the United States. About 550 Muslim refugees have been admitted to the United States since the executive order. More than 11,000 arrived during the same period last year. The share of admitted refugees who are Muslim has dropped from 48 percent at the end of the Obama administration to 11 percent in recent months.
Under Trump’s October executive order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would conduct a 90-day “in-depth threat assessment of each [targeted] country.” During that period, DHS said in a memo to Trump, it would only take refugees from the 11 countries“whose admission is deemed to be in the national interest and poses no threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”
The 90-day mark passed last week. ButSean Piazza, a spokesman for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a refugee resettlement agency, says the organization has not received any updates about the status of the temporary review now that the 90-day period has passed. It is unclear if it is still in effect, andDHS did not respond to a request for comment. DHS’ October memo stated that refugee admissions from the targeted countries are likely to “occur at a slower pace” beyond the 90-day deadline.
The Trump administration has tried to undermine support for accepting refugees by casting them as an economic burden. In September, the New York Timesreported that White House officials hadkilled a draft report from the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees have increased government revenue by $63 billion over the past decade. The report that was ultimately published had a different calculus, documenting how much it costs to provide services to refugees but not how much they pay in taxes.
Overall, the United States in on track to resettle about 21,000 refugees this year, according to the IRC.That would be fewer than in any year since at least 1980—including 2002, when refugee admissions plummeted in the wake of 9/11. It is also less than half of the annual 45,000-refugee cap that the Trump administration set in September, which was the lowest cap ever. Historically, the United States has been considered a world leader in resettling refugees.
Before Trump assumed the presidency, it already took up to two years for refugees to be vetted and resettled, not including the time people spent fleeing their country for refugee camps. Henrike Dessaules, the communications director at the International Refugee Assistance Project, says the group has had clients who “were ready to travel, that had their medical checks, security checks, and interviews done.” Instead, “they have been completely stalled in the process,” she says.*
In 2016, the Obama administration placed its refugee limit at 85,000 people and used all but five of those slots. This year’s drop comes even though there were about 22.5 million refugees across the world in 2016, more than at any time since the United Nations’ refugee agency was founded in 1950.
Syrian refugees escape the war, but die from the cold
Refugees freeze to death in Lebanon02:48
Editor’s Note: This story contains extremely graphic images of dead and wounded people.
Bekaa Valley, Lebanon (CNN) — The rocky, plowed hillside is scattered with clues of what happened that January night. A woman’s scarf. A diaper. Empty cans of tuna fish. A plastic bag of sugar. An empty box of Turkish chocolate biscuits. A single cheap Syrian-made woman’s shoe. Several white, mud-spattered rubber gloves.
It was here, last month, that 17 Syrians froze to death in a night-time snowstorm while trying to cross the mountains into Lebanon.
Three-year-old Sarah is one of the few who survived. She now lies in a bed in the Bekaa Hospital in nearby Zahleh, two intravenous tubes taped to her small right arm. Frostbite left a large dark scab on her forehead. A thick bandage covers her right cheek. Another bandage is wound around her head to cover her frostbitten right ear.
Sarah doesn’t speak. She doesn’t make a sound. Her brown eyes dart around the room — curious, perhaps confused. Her father, Mishaan al Abed, sits by her bed, trying to distract her with his cell phone.
Sarah, 3, suffers from frostbite after smugglers abandoned her and her family as they were crossing into Lebanon.
No one has told Sarah that her mother Manal, her five-year-old sister Hiba, her grandmother, her aunt and two cousins died on the mountain.
“Sometimes she says, ‘I want to eat.’ That’s all,” Abed says. Sarah hasn’t mentioned anything about her ordeal, and he is hesitant to ask her.
An unfortunate reunion
Until now, Sarah hadn’t seen her father for two and a half years. He left Syria for Lebanon and found work as a house painter, leaving his family behind.
Mishaan al Abed sent money back to his wife and kids, who stayed outside the town of Abu Kamal, on the Syrian-Iraqi border.
ISIS controlled Abu Kamal from the summer of 2014 until last November, when it was retaken by Syrian government forces. Fighting still rages in the countryside around it, where Al Abed’s family lived.
After their house was damaged, Abed’s brother and his family, along with Abed’s wife and two children, fled to Damascus. There they paid $4,000 — a fortune for a poor family — to a Syrian lawyer who they were told had the right connections with the army, intelligence and smugglers.
The plan was for them to be driven to the border in private cars on military-only roads. From there, says Abed, they were to walk with the smugglers for half an hour into Lebanon, where they would be met by other cars.
The plan started to fall apart when snow began to fall. The smugglers abandoned the group. The family lost their way and became separated. In the dark and the cold, most of them died. It’s not clear how Sarah and a few others survived.
The only thing that is clear, says hospital director Dr. Antoine Cortas, is that “it is a miracle Sarah is still alive.”
Hidden by the darkness and the snow was a house just a few hundred steps down the mountain.
In January, a group of Syrians froze to death trying to cross into Lebanon during a snowstorm.
Abed was expecting his family to cross over, but became concerned when he didn’t hear from them. “I was told the army had arrested people trying to cross into Lebanon. I thought it must be them. Then the intelligence services sent me a picture. I identified her as my wife.”
He opens the picture on his cell phone. It shows a lifeless woman curled up on the snow amidst thorn bushes, a red woolen cap on her head.
A struggle to cross over, a struggle to remain
More than a million Syrians have taken refuge in Lebanon, straining the resources of a country with a population of around six million. The Lebanese authorities have, to some extent, turned a blind eye to those entering the country illegally. But they have refused to allow relief groups to establish proper refugee camps, unlike Jordan and Turkey, for fear they will become permanent.
What pass for camps — officially called “informal tented settlements” — are ramshackle affairs. Syrians typically pay $100 to a landowner to build drafty, uninsulated breezeblock shelters with flimsy plastic tarpaulins as roofs.
Abu Farhan, a man in his sixties from Hama, in central Syria, lives in one of those shelters in a muddy camp outside the town of Rait, just a few kilometers from the Syrian border. His wife Fatima is ill. She is huddled next to a kerosene stove under a pile of blankets. Between coughing fits, she moans loudly. Farhan has had to borrow more than two million Lebanese pounds — around $1,300 — for her medical treatment.
Denied proper refugee camps, many Syrian refugees live in informal tented settlements.
Illness is just one of the perils here. Vermin, he says, is another. “There’s everything here,” he chuckles bitterly, “even things I’ve never seen before. Rats. Mice. Everything!”
The dilemma that Syrians in Lebanon face is glaringly clear. They’re not welcome here, and it’s difficult to scrape by. According to a recent report by the Norwegian Refugee Council, 71% of Syrian refugees in Lebanon live in poverty.
Point of no return
Some Syrians have returned home, but many, like Abu Musa, a man in his forties who lives in the same settlement as Farhan, insist that returning would be nothing short of suicidal. He comes from Maarat al-Numan, in Idlib province, where Syrian forces, backed by Russian warplanes, are waging an offensive against government opponents.
“Of course, I’d like to go back to Syria!” Musa exclaims, gesturing around his damp, cold hut as if that were reason enough to return home. “But Syria isn’t safe. They’re fighting in my town. My house has been destroyed.”
And thus, Syrians continue to try to make their way to Lebanon, despite the very real risks.
Over 70% of Lebanon’s 1 million Syrian refugees live in poverty
“The people who are walking across the mountains, and taking days to cross the mountains in the middle of winter, are a testament to the fact that Syria is not safe,” said Mike Bruce of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
“Until Syria is safe, until there is a lasting peace, people should not be going back to Syria.”
*************************************
With the election of the staunchly anti-American, White Nationalist, xenophobic, religiously bigoted Trump Administration, the United States forfeited any claim to moral leadership and humanitarianism on the world stage. Our anti-refugee policies also harm our allies in the region by forcing them to bear the entire responsibility for sheltering refugees.
Only the electoral removal of this truly un-American Administration and its GOP fellow travelers from power will allow us to begin the healing process. Selfishness and inhumanity are not policies — they are diseases that will consume us all if we don’t exercise our Constitutional and political rights by voting to remove the toxic leaders spreading them!
The Trump administration will no longer seek to automatically release pregnant immigrants from detention — a move in line with the overall efforts by the administration to hold far more immigrants in custody than its predecessors.
The change in policy was sent by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to Congress on Thursday morning and obtained by CNN.
According to the new directive, immigration officers will no longer default to trying to release pregnant women who fall into immigration custody, either because they are undocumented or otherwise subject to deportation. The Obama administration policy urged officers to presume a pregnant woman could be released except for extreme circumstances.
But a FAQ sent with the directive makes clear that ICE is not going to detain all pregnant immigrants. The policy will require a case-by-case evaluation, the FAQ explains, and will keep in custody “only those whose detention is necessary to effectuate removal, as well as those deemed a flight risk or danger to the community.”
ICE will also lean towards releasing pregnant women if they are in their third trimester, and will also make an effort for detention facilities to provide services to pregnant women and parents.
The move follows controversial efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to keep unaccompanied minor immigrants in custody rather than releasing them to obtain abortions, a policy that has been the subject of intense litigation.
White House reviewing plan to restrict immigrants’ use of government programs
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
The White House is reviewing a proposal that could penalize immigrants who use certain government programs, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Thursday.
The proposed rule change would substantially expand the type of benefits that could be considered as grounds to reject any immigrants’ application to extend their stay in the US or become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen.
The move continues efforts by the Trump administration to overhaul the US immigration system and the changes could have the effect of substantially tipping the scales in favor of high-income immigrants — all without requiring an act of Congress. The changes could amount to an effective income test of immigrants to the US, critics say.
The expansion would going forward include programs like children’s health insurance, tax credits and some forms of Medicaid as black marks against immigrants seeking to change their status to stay.
By including benefits used by family members of the immigrants, the proposal could also apply to benefits being used by US citizens, who may be the spouse or child of the immigrant applying for status
DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton said the proposed rule had been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget — the final step of the approval process before it’s released.
Houlton would not comment on the specifics of the proposal, but did said that DHS is “committed to enforcing existing immigration law … and part of that is respecting taxpayer dollars.”
CNN first reported on the changes as they were in development last month. The Washington Post obtained a more recent version of the proposal on Wednesday.
Why the change matters
US law authorizes authorities to reject immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge” — or dependent on government.
Since the 1990s, that has meant that immigrants shouldn’t use so-called “cash benefits,” but a large number of programs were exempt from consideration.
But the new rule would include programs such as some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, subsidized health care under Obamacare and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to the latest draft obtained by the Post.
In one change from the earlier draft obtained by CNN, educational programs that benefit children, including Head Start, will not be included under the administration’s plan. Programs like veteran’s benefits that individuals earn would also be excluded.
The rule would not explicitly prohibit immigrants or their families from accepting the benefits. Rather, it authorizes the officers who evaluate their applications for things like green cards and residency visas to count the use of these programs against the immigrant, and gives them authority to deny the immigrants visas on these grounds — even if the program was used by a family member.
The decision sets up a difficult scenario for immigrants who hope to stay in the US. If they accept any public benefits — or their family members do — they could potentially be denied future abilities to stay. That includes decisions about whether to use health insurance subsidies for them or their children, or tax credits they qualify for otherwise.
Immigrants are no more likely to qualify for these programs than the native US population, according to tables included in the documents, the Post reported. There is no substantial difference in the rate between the two groups — in some cases foreign-born residents are slightly more likely to use a program, but in some cases the native-born population is, according to the tabulations.
US to require immigrants to turn over social media handles
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration plans to require immigrants applying to come to the United States to submit five years of social media history, it announced Thursday, setting up a potential scouring of their Twitter and Facebook histories.
The move follows the administration’s emphasis on “extreme vetting” of would-be immigrants to the US, and is an extension of efforts by the previous administration to more closely scrutinize social media after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
According to notices submitted by the State Department on Thursday, set for formal publication on Friday, the government plans to require nearly all visa applicants to the US to submit five years of social media handles for specific platforms identified by the government — and with an option to list handles for other platforms not explicitly required.
The administration expects the move to affect nearly 15 million would-be immigrants to the United States, according to the documents. That would include applicants for legal permanent residency. There are exemptions for diplomatic and official visas, the State Department said.
The decision will not take effect immediately — the publication of the planned change to visa applications on Friday will start a 60-day clock for the public to comment on the move.
The potential scouring of social media postings by potential immigrants is sure to rankle privacy and civil liberties advocates, who have been vocal in opposing such moves going back to efforts by the Obama administration to collect such information on a more selective and voluntary basis.
Critics complain the moves, amid broader efforts by the administration, are not only invasive on privacy grounds, but also effectively limit legal immigration to the US by slowing the process down, making it more burdensome and making it more difficult to be accepted for a visa.
Federal authorities argue the moves are necessary for national security.
In addition to requiring the five years of social media history, the application will also ask for previous telephone numbers, email addresses, prior immigration violations and any family history of involvement in terrorist activities, according to the notice.
Since its early days, the administration has been telegraphing a desire to more closely dig through the backgrounds and social media histories of foreign travelers, but Thursday’s move is the first time that it will formally require virtually all applicants to come to the US to disclose that information.
After the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015, greater attention was placed on immigrants’ social media use, when it was revealed that one of the attackers had advocated jihad in posts on a private social media account under a pseudonym that authorities did not find before allowing her to come to the US.
The move by the Trump administration stops short of requiring passwords or access to those social media accounts, although then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly suggested last year that it was being considered.
The administration has been pursuing “extreme vetting” of foreigners as a centerpiece of its immigration and national security policy, including through the contentious travel ban that remains the subject of heavy litigation.
Joshua Matz is a constitutional lawyer based in the District. He is also the publisher of the legal analysis blog Take Care.
President Trump is hard at work making animus the law of the land. Justice Department lawyers revealed his latest effort Friday night, announcing a revised plan to exclude nearly all transgender soldiers from the armed forces.
As many commentators haveobserved, the reasoning offered to support Trump’s policy is riddled with empirical errors and anti-trans stereotypes. It comes nowhere close to disproving the comprehensive study in 2016 that recommended allowing transgender people to serve openly. Like so many other missives from this White House, it makes only a token effort to conceal the disdain and disgust that underlie it.
Trump’s original “transgender ban” was blocked byfourfederal courts. After two of those rulings were affirmed on appeal, the administration decided against seeking Supreme Court review. It’s therefore safe to assume that Trump’s latest order will not go into effect unless it survives constitutional challenges.
And in thinking about that litigation, it’s hard to escape a feeling of deja vu. A little more than 14 months into Trump’s presidency, a pattern has emerged in cases challenging some of his most despicable decisions.
. . . .
It remains to be seen when and where these arguments will succeed. As a logical matter, there must be some limits. Evidence that Trump originally acted with impermissible motives cannot (and should not) permanently preclude him from making policy.
But that isn’t the situation we confront. Trump has made no effort whatsoever to dispel or deny the aura of animus that envelops so many of his orders. To the contrary, he and his advisers have leaned into the hate. With each passing day, it spreads like a poison.
We thus live in a strange new world, where bigots serve openly and soldiers are forced into closets.
********************************************
Go on over to the WashPost at the link for the complete article.
The problem, as noted by Matz, is that our system isn’t designed to deal with unremitting hate and bias from it’s most active, and supposedly most responsible, litigant, the U.S. Government. Usually, after a few “warning shots across the bow,” the Executive gets the picture and changes strategies.
But, led by White Nationalists like Trump and Sessions, this Administration simply “doubles down” on thinly disguised hate and bias motivated policies. At some point, the Article III courts are likely to become both frustrated and exhausted. By continuing to “knock down” bias-based policies and actions, the Article IIIs become part of the political fray, which makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps at that point, they will just start giving Trump & Co. “free passes.” Indeed, some Federal Courts, including perhaps the Supremes, already appear prepared to “punt” on the daily dose of legally questionable and indecent legal positions spewed forth by this Administration.
“Washington (CNN)Gold Star father Khizr Khan wrote a personal appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday to strike down President Donald Trump’s travel ban, using his family’s story to argue the ban is unconstitutional and “desecrates” his son’s sacrifice.
Known for his impassioned speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khan is a lawyer and the father of Capt. Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed when he moved to stop a car containing suicide bombers headed toward his base in Iraq, for which he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.
Originally from Pakistan and a Muslim, Khan filed the legal brief on Friday because, in his view, Trump’s travel ban “not only desecrates Humayun Khan’s service and sacrifice as a Muslim- American officer in the United States Army, but also violates Khizr Khan’s own constitutional rights,” his attorney wrote in the brief.
The brief also notes Trump’s comments on the campaign trail that he wanted to institute a “Muslim ban,” a key component of critics’ arguments that the administration’s travel ban is a thinly veiled attempt to target Muslims.
“The taint of discrimination has not been washed away,” the brief argues, saying the latest travel ban and its predecessors all flow from that original idea.
“The message is that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders,” it continues. “And that message has been received loud and clear — not only by Muslims like Mr. Khan, but by those who have been denigrating and attacking Muslims with increasing frequency and vehemence since President Trump called for, and then began trying to implement, his unconstitutional Muslim Ban.”
“The message is that Muslims are outsiders, regardless of the depth of their devotion to the Constitution, and despite paying the ultimate price to defend it. That message is painfully clear to Mr. Khan,” the brief states.
Khan’s attorney, Dan Jackson, said the Gold Star father felt compelled to weigh in because of the impact of the travel ban on his son’s legacy, and added Khan has a “fierce devotion” to the Constitution.”
*********************************
Go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s complete article.
The rich irony here is that the individuals who “designed” the “travel ban” — Trump, Sessions, Miller — have shown a total disdain for our Constitution. Time and time again, they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of everyone in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or status. What kind of country disrespects the memory of those who have died in its defense while allowing itself to be governed by biased, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest individuals who reject the very notion of a Constitutional republic?
